Comments on: The Love of Lust

The Love of Lust

AlsoMike — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:06:57 -0800

The Love of Lust: "The emancipation of social mores has played a bizarre trick on men and women. Far from giving free rein to the joyous effervescence of the instincts, it has only replaced one dogma with another. Reined in or forbidden in the past, lust has become mandatory."

By: MikeMc

MikeMc — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:16:05 -0800

I am a big fan of lust, it is my favorite of the 7 deadly sins. Got nuthin'.

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:21:15 -0800

You can see this enforced on many relationship and casual sex questions here on AskMetafilter (ie. "if he/she ain't puttin' out by the third date, dump 'em!"). It is indeed tedious and sad. People who are having sex without connecting at any other level are just as repressed as the people who live stifled lives.

By: Caduceus

Caduceus — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:21:55 -0800

I don't have time for this; if I hurry I can work a roll in the proverbial hay into my preparations for the holiday party I'm going to tonight.

By: Avenger

Avenger — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:23:47 -0800

what is this person talking about

By: fleetmouse

fleetmouse — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:25:15 -0800

"lust has become mandatory." I shall inform ms. mouse post-haste!

By: Scattercat

Scattercat — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:27:30 -0800

I'd have been more impressed with the article if it provided anything even remotely resembling evidence to back up its claims. A few obscure pop culture references and mentioning both Freud and Kinsey does not a convincing argument make.

By: Abiezer

Abiezer — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:28:25 -0800

"Evangelists of the queer, dissident feminists, polyamorists, disciples of the latex and the whip, sex performers, revanchist virilists, aggressive monogamists, homophobes and heterophobes, priests of orgasm" I've no idea how the author got their hands on my Christmas drinks guest list. Quite disconcerting.

By: swooz

swooz — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:28:58 -0800

One thing I will never understand. I went to a wedding a few years ago, one male guest invited himself -- not handsome, beer gut, condescending personality -- and plowed through 4 of the female guests over the weekend. How did he appeal to any of them? I just don't get people who want to fuck somebody they don't even know. The same thing happens at every bar in the world on Friday night. I'm always there just to drink.

By: drjimmy11

drjimmy11 — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:30:41 -0800

No. Wrong. No one is going around yelling at people "you must have sex!!" No one cares, as long as they themselves can have the sex they want. Quit it with the pseudo-scientific arguments and move to Saudi Arabia, if the site of Britney in a short dress really bothers you that much.

By: Edgewise

Edgewise — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:31:31 -0800

Seriously? I think it's still a lot easier to be prude, these days, than it was to be promiscuous in the old days (at least, for women). I think it all really depends on which circles you travel in. I can see that some people feel under assault from the Cosmo that greets them at the checkout aisle, but this polemic strikes me as an over-the-top criticism with no prescription but to complain.

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:35:02 -0800

The Situationist slogan, 'To live without dead time and to enjoy without restraint', was a consumerist ideal. It claimed to be libertarian but was just advertising. It is in the sphere of commercial galleries, the canvas and the screen that life goes by without any idle time, 24/7, where I can help myself to all products, glide from one chain of stores to another, buy and communicate with the entire planet. Somebody had better tell Adbusters - "live without dead time" is one of their oft-repeated slogans.

By: zarq

zarq — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:36:16 -0800

I'd have been more convinced if the author had backed up his (endless) declarations with modern cultural examples that proved his points. Instead, this entire essay seemed filled with meaningless, almost bitter-sounding generalities.

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:38:24 -0800

And who'da thunk it? The site of Britney in a short dress is a googlewhack. on preview: google just indexed metafilter in the time it took me to write up that comment

By: uri

uri — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:44:20 -0800

High school newspaper op-ed + multisyllabic words + obscure citations = this

By: Forktine

Forktine — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:47:36 -0800

The more alike we become, the more we hate each other, and it is only in opposition to others that we exist. The article is full of this kind of empty writing -- it makes all the sounds of intelligence, has all the right kinds of words, but is really hollow at its center. There's a good argument to be made about the paradoxes that come with opening up sexual mores, but it isn't in this article.

By: Mister Moofoo

Mister Moofoo — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:51:09 -0800

it makes all the sounds of intelligence Oll Raight!

By: nasreddin

nasreddin — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:57:03 -0800

See also Marcuse on "repressive desublimation":

The Pleasure Principle absorbs the Reality Principle; sexuality is liberated (or rather liberalized) in socially constructive forms. This notion implies that there are repressive modes of desublimation,[ compared with which the sublimated drives and objectives contain more deviation, more freedom, and more refusal to heed the social taboos. It appears that such repressive desublimation is indeed operative in the sexual sphere, and here, as in the desublimation of higher culture, it operates as the by-product of the social controls of technological reality, which extend liberty while intensifying domination. The link between desublimation and technological society can perhaps best be illuminated by discussing the change in the social use of instinctual energy. In this society, not all the time spent on and with mechanisms is labor time (i.e., unpleasurable but necessary toil), and not all the energy saved by the machine is labor power. Mechanization has also "saved" libido, the energy of the Life Instincts – that is, has barred it from previous modes of realization. This is the kernel of truth in the romantic contrast between the modern traveler and the wandering poet or artisan, between assembly line and handicraft, town and city, factory-produced bread and the home-made loaf, the sailboat and the outboard motor, etc. True, this romantic pre-technical world was permeated with misery, toil, and filth, and these in turn were the background of all pleasure and joy. Still, there was a "landscape," a medium of libidinal experience which no longer exists. With its disappearance (itself a historical prerequisite of progress), a whole dimension of human activity and passivity has been de-eroticized. The environment from which the individual could obtain pleasure – which he could cathect as gratifying almost as an extended zone of the body – has been rigidly reduced. Consequently, the "universe" of libidinous cathexis is likewise reduced. The effect is a localization and contraction of libido, the reduction of erotic to sexual experience and satisfaction. For example, compare love-making in a meadow and in an automobile, on a lovers' walk outside the town walls and on a Manhattan street. In the former cases, the environment partakes of and invites libidinal cathexis and tends to be eroticized. Libido transcends beyond the immediate erotogenic zones – a process of nonrepressive sublimation. In contrast, a mechanized environment seems to block such self-transcendence of libido. Impelled in the striving to extend the field of erotic gratification, libido becomes less "polymorphous," less capable of eroticism beyond localized sexuality, and the latter is intensified. Thus diminishing erotic and intensifying sexual energy, the technological reality limits the scope of sublimation. It also reduces the need for sublimation. In the mental apparatus, the tension between that which is desired and that which is permitted seems considerably lowered, and the Reality Principle no longer seems to require a sweeping and painful transformation of instinctual needs. The individual must adapt himself to a world which does not seem to demand the denial of his innermost needs – a world which is not essentially hostile. The organism is thus being preconditioned for the spontaneous acceptance of what is offered. Inasmuch as the greater liberty involves a contraction rather than extension and development of instinctual needs, it works for rather than against the status quo of general repression – one might speak of "institutionalized desublimation." The latter appears to be a vital factor in the making of the authoritarian personality of our time. It has often been noted that advanced industrial civilization operates with a greater degree of sexual freedom – "operates" in the sense that the latter becomes a market value and a factor of social mores.. Without ceasing to be an instrument of labor, the body is allowed to exhibit its sexual features in the everyday work world and in work relations. This is one of the unique achievements of industrial society – rendered possible by the reduction of dirty and heavy physical labor; by the availability of cheap, attractive clothing, beauty culture, and physical hygiene; by the requirements of the advertising industry, etc. The sexy office and sales girls, the handsome, virile junior executive and floor walker are highly marketable commodities, and the possession of suitable mistresses – once the prerogative of kings, princes, and lords – facilitates the career of even the less exalted ranks in the business community.

By: weapons-grade pandemonium

weapons-grade pandemonium — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:57:06 -0800

And who'da thunk it? The site of Britney in a short dress is a googlewhack. Ah, but remove the quotation marks and search Google Images with the filter off, and you know what you get? That's right. Henry Kissinger.

By: jokeefe

jokeefe — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:11:10 -0800

Huh. In the first place, he misreads the Situationists entirely. In the second place, I swear to god I read this exact article in 1972.

By: AsYouKnow Bob

AsYouKnow Bob — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:12:15 -0800

"The emancipation of social mores has played a bizarre trick on men and women. Far from giving free rein to the joyous effervescence of the instincts, it has only replaced one dogma with another. Reined in or forbidden in the past, lust has become mandatory." UR DOIN IT RONG

By: autoclavicle

autoclavicle — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:14:06 -0800

This isn't true. Slut/stud still exists.

By: Drasher

Drasher — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:14:34 -0800

Wait just a darn minute! You mean to tell me that I missed out on this activity in high school (because I was born too early, it happened later) AND, I flippin' missed out on it as an adult??!? (yeah, I'm too freakin' old now!)

By: nonliteral

nonliteral — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:15:32 -0800

People who are having sex without connecting at any other level are just as repressed as the people who live stifled lives. Better to be repressed and getting some, than just repressed...

By: medea42

medea42 — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:17:28 -0800

It seems like these pieces on sexuality are predicated on the idea that only one morality/moral order can be operable for the world to be a decent place. While I think that perspective is true in traffic law (more or less) when it comes to sex it just seems like a bunch of Kantfail spitting all over the place to me. "People are still having sex. It happens all the time." I would love to see more comment from men and women across all sexualities and lifestyle preferences that talk about how self-respect works into their sexual practices...

By: kittens for breakfast

kittens for breakfast — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:18:11 -0800

When will these horrible women stop throwing their vaginas at me

By: aeschenkarnos

aeschenkarnos — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:25:41 -0800

This is just a "get off my lawn" appeal to customs that have passed, solely because the author is uncomfortable with present customs. But before we sneer at him for that, we'd best clean our own houses for such temporal prejudice. He's wrong, but he's wrong in a way that we all, in time, will be wrong. Far less forgivably, he mistakes custom, which includes etiquette, fashion, 'grace' and 'class', for morality, which is the degree of regard we have for the welfare of others (including relative to our own), which is of immensely greater importance than which orifices which organ might be stuck into, in what locations and after what agreements. It's a common mistake, that is true, but all the worse for that.

By: AlsoMike

AlsoMike — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:26:16 -0800

One clear, concrete example of this is Viagra - doesn't this imply that the lack of sexual desire is a medical disorder to be cured? That's what they used to think about homosexuality too. I agree that the author misses the boat a bit in pointing out the consequences. What is more significant is how Corporate America has fully adopted this idea. Obviously Pfizer is one example of a company that profits from it, but advertising is full of sexuality. I want to be careful to not make some kind of cheap, prudish point about how there's too much sex on TV, we're titillated non-stop and it's indecent. On the contrary, what if the real problem here is that we aren't titillated at all? Rather than arousing our desire and then offering an object that promises to fulfill it, what if the secret ideological message in advertising is "Pleasure is obligatory, buy this object to fulfill your duty"? Sex is only one form of pleasure adopted by corporations. If you go through the career websites of many Fortune 500 companies, the message is similar: "Unlock your desires, live your dreams, find your true passion, life is an adventure!" And of course, Coke is a master of marketing, so they know to keep it simple: "Enjoy!" If you want to defend the idea that pleasure is inherently transgressive, then shouldn't you be praising global capitalism as a liberating force?

By: mdn

mdn — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:27:10 -0800

No. Wrong. No one is going around yelling at people "you must have sex!!" No one cares, as long as they themselves can have the sex they want. Social mores have a real affect on self definition. If a person grows up hearing that everyone around them doesn't care whether they (the original person) have sex, but certainly is seeking all the sex they can possibly get for themselves, since they're a healthy, unrepressed human being after all, then that person is going to grow up with the understanding that if they aren't desiring constant sex, there is something wrong with them. This will alter the way they present themselves. It's hard to know what's really "average", and as someone mentioned, it does depend to some extent what circles a person travels in, but the current norm is far more weighted toward high sexual interest as the standard (i.e., it's less likely to feel embarrassing to admit to too active a sex life than too inactive).

By: Sidhedevil

Sidhedevil — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:29:36 -0800

Nobody should police other people's sexual behavior with other consenting adults. Full stop. Whether it's "DON'T HAVE SO MUCH SEX" or "DON'T HAVE SO LITTLE SEX" it's nobody's business but the parties involved. However, this rant is like some kind of bizarre retro weirdness. The sexual revolution was over almost 30 years ago, followed by the sexual Terror; now we're in the sexual Directory, I guess, waiting for the sexual First Empire to begin. And, yeah, it's not an equal-opportunity playing field at all. Slut/stud, cougar/distinguished older man, it's still double standard cha cha cha.

By: Lobster Garden

Lobster Garden — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:32:51 -0800

The collapse of taboos and the right of women to dispose of their own bodies are coupled with an injunction of voluptuousness for all "Dispose of"? Sorry, but when I have sex, I don't really feel like I'm throwing myself into a trash can or giving myself away. Ugh.

By: nasreddin

nasreddin — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:39:45 -0800

"Dispose of"? Sorry, but when I have sex, I don't really feel like I'm throwing myself into a trash can or giving myself away. Ugh. First of all, English isn't the author's first language (he's a semi-prominent philosopher in France). Second, that's a perfectly legitimate usage of "dispose of."

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:40:27 -0800

now we're in the sexual Directory, I guess, waiting for the sexual First Empire to begin. I humbly submit my application for the role of Sex Emperor.

By: Lobster Garden

Lobster Garden — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:41:03 -0800

Didn't notice that the author isn't a native English speaker. But no, it's not a legitimate usage of dispose of. Having sex does not equal giving yourself away just because you are a woman.

By: autoclavicle

autoclavicle — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:41:36 -0800

"... concrete example of this is Viagra..." More accurately: the coverage of Viagra by insurance companies and under the proposed health care reform bill demonstrates that the sexual prowess of men is valued and cherished--by other men who are in charge of the decision-making process. The lack of coverage of birth control options (including abortion, of which women have a constitutional right to access) by many insurance providers and under the proposed health care reform bill demonstrates that women deserve to get illnesses and pregnancies from sex.

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:42:34 -0800

But no, it's not a legitimate usage of dispose of. Let me help you there.

By: Sidhedevil

Sidhedevil — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:43:32 -0800

Actually, no, nasreddin. "Dispose" would be legit; "dispose of" means only to discard. I can dispose my body to sex, but that doesn't constitute disposing OF my body.

By: Sidhedevil

Sidhedevil — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:44:40 -0800

Burhanistan, the issue isn't with "dispose"--one can dispose one's body to or for sex--it's with "dispose of" as a phrase. But, yes, prepositions are the hardest thing to get exactly right in one's second language, so cut him some slack on that one.

By: Lobster Garden

Lobster Garden — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:45:25 -0800

I don't think I am making myself clear. Using "dispose of" to describe a woman having sex indicates that she is giving something away in the act. She is not. It is actually possible for a woman to want to have sex for her own reasons. If the term were also applied to men, it would make more sense. But in this article, it is describing only women.

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:45:44 -0800

— dispose of 1 : to place, distribute, or arrange especially in an orderly way 2 a : to transfer to the control of another

By: nasreddin

nasreddin — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:46:04 -0800

OED: 8. dispose of (with indirect passive to be disposed of): a. To make a disposition, ordering, or arrangement of; to do what one will with; to order, control, regulate, manage: = sense 2. spec. in Astrol. (see quot. 1819). Obs. It's a somewhat archaic usage, but it's still current for the French cognate expression disposer de, so it's understandable.

By: idiopath

idiopath — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:46:17 -0800

AlsoMike: "One clear, concrete example of this is Viagra - doesn't this imply that the lack of sexual desire is a medical disorder to be cured?" Viagra does not cause or even facilitate arousal, it affects the ability to achieve and maintain an erection. It won't turn someone on, it just affects blood flow allowing them to get an erection more easily. Not being able to get an erection when aroused is a medical disorder to be cured.

By: Justinian

Justinian — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:52:50 -0800

idiopath has it: The idea that Viagra is about curing a "lack of desire" is pernicious nonsense. Viagra is about helping people with severe diabetes, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injuries, and other problems. The ability to laugh about it is young, healthy man's privilege. Sure, tons and tons of people take it recreationally. That's also true of painkillers, anaesthetics, anxiolytics, and many other drugs.

By: Lobster Garden

Lobster Garden — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:53:46 -0800

Repeated for emphasis: If the term were also applied to men, it would make more sense. But in this article, it is describing only women. You are entirely ignoring the connotation that to "dispose of" something equals throwing it away or getting rid of it. I completely forgot about the French verb "disposer de," so I guess I can forgive this guy. In any case it is a sexist term because of the implication that a woman has something to give away in having sex whereas a man does not.

By: PeterMcDermott

PeterMcDermott — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:57:25 -0800

One clear, concrete example of this is Viagra - doesn't this imply that the lack of sexual desire is a medical disorder to be cured? Erectile dysfunction is not the same thing as a lack of sexual desire. If it were, there'd be no demand for Viagra. Why would you want a tablet that lets you do something you've got no desire to do? More accurately: the coverage of Viagra by insurance companies and under the proposed health care reform bill demonstrates that the sexual prowess of men is valued and cherished--by other men who are in charge of the decision-making process. The NHS rations Viagra to men at a maximum of one dose a week -- and it's limited to men whose ED has certain (mostly organic) causes. So, apparently not *that* valued and cherished, it would seem.

By: enn

enn — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:58:20 -0800

You are entirely ignoring the connotation that to "dispose of" something equals throwing it away or getting rid of it. Because that's simply incorrect. To use "dispose of" to mean "make use of" is perfectly idiomatic English. The most common usage of a phrase is not the only one that counts. (One might even say that it is not dispositive.)

By: autoclavicle

autoclavicle — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:00:41 -0800

Why are women "disposing of" their bodies, but the men they sleep with aren't?

By: Abiezer

Abiezer — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:05:12 -0800

If you want to defend the idea that pleasure is inherently transgressive, then shouldn't you be praising global capitalism as a liberating force? Well, many of capitalism's sternest and earliest critics did precisely the latter, though not usually because of notions of the transgressive nature of pleasure - they were well aware that as capitalism ushered in modernity it did so by breaking down existing social formations both good and bad. And that's the nub of my disagreement with the article - it's conflating a teleological process (one that was amoral in the sense that it was not a conscious attempt to do away with existing social mores) with other more deliberate challenges to the old morality. The two are connected of course, but not in the way I think the article presents. The larger forces breaking down the way we were proceed from the logic of the commodification of all aspects of human interaction. When your focus is the economic benefits you derive from such a process you tend to be blind to the social consequences of the same. Thus conservatives like Margaret Thatcher who bemoaned the decline in 'family values' while presiding over economic and social policies that did more to destroy them than any government for generations; I don't think she was insincere, just ideologically predisposed not to connect cause and effect in that way. The flipside of that is that it probably does behove social activists working to get rid of the old prejudices and oppressions to be aware of the larger framework and the dangers it presents (and they usually are well aware in my experience), but it does nothing to undermine the justice of their case. Mind, it's a couple of hours since I read the article with all its ten-dollar words and to be frank it might not be arguing what I say it is at all. It's mostly gone in one ear and out the other (a most filthy perversion - do try it) but I've typed all that waffle above now so there you go.

By: i_am_joe's_spleen

i_am_joe's_spleen — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:06:01 -0800

I think he has something in the notion that there is an idealised vigorous sex life, perhaps with multiple people, which is in its way just as unattainable and oppressive as the chaste ideal it replaced. But the language is hyperbolic, and unfair. Ukase? Give me a break. There were severe social and even criminal consequences in the past for all kinds of sexual acts, whereas no one is coming after me now for my lack of erotic achievement -- it is up to me to believe the hype and find myself wanting, not a matter of state intervention.

By: enn

enn — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:07:43 -0800

Why are women "disposing of" their bodies, but the men they sleep with aren't? I don't know, because that's what he's writing about in that sentence? I'm not saying the article doesn't suck, only that the phrase "dispose of" is used in a perfectly unremarkable way. Presumably he mentions women specifically because his argument is that men have always been able to dispose of their own bodies as they wish but that this has only more recently become true of women.

By: Sidhedevil

Sidhedevil — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:12:20 -0800

Look, the biggest thing that's wrong with this article is NOT that the author doesn't write perfectly idiomatic US English. Let's just stipulate that he translated "disposer de" as "dispose of" and didn't intend it to have the exact connotations that it does to (many) native speakers of English, but rather intended it to mean the same as "disposer de"--in this context, "make decisions about" would be an easier-to-understand turn of phrase.

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:24:13 -0800

I find it endlessly entertaining that the author of this article uses the word "revanchist" as a pejorative. You'd think he'd regard revanchism as a good thing!

By: ScotchRox

ScotchRox — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:26:31 -0800

"Sex is no longer an activity; it is a club used to knock everybody else senseless." ALRIGHT SEX CLUB! wait a sec... no! no!

By: naju

naju — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:26:56 -0800

It seems like his thesis is this: "The elimination of reticence has been offset by increasing demands—you've got to be 'up to snuff', as they say, at the risk of being rejected." It's not a great article, but I think it's clear that someone who's not willing to have sex or be openly sexual to the degree our society expects is going to be heavily handicapped in navigating the dating field and finding a relationship. That counts as a severe social consequence to me. I wish he'd shared some of his personal stories on this front, if that's what inspired this piece. Though it's understandable that he wouldn't, given the, er, social consequences of talking about it publicly.

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:33:09 -0800

People who are having sex without connecting at any other level are just as repressed as the people who live stifled lives. While I agree with this sentiment in general, calling it "repression" may be taking things a bit too far. One could argue that there may be elements of emotional or spiritual repression at play when going for no-strings-attached hookups, but I usually liken casual sex to fast food: a shortcut to empty calories. So, when you're out on the town and you have a dozen drinks or so under your belt, that pizza* sure can look damn fine. And when you're tucking into it, it might just seem like one of the best things you've ever eaten. There may even be a few slices left over for the morning. Or maybe leftovers sicken you and you want nothing to do with it anymore, wishing you hadn't lost your self-control like that. Whatever, it was good at the time. And fast food is rightly popular - because it gives that quick, rich, greasy fix - although without much subtlety & without you needing to have any kind of appreciation of the ingredients & techniques behind a proper recipe. And you don't need to put any thought, time or care into preparing it yourself; just pick it up, consume & move on. Nice and easy, convenient, but ultimately lacking in any real nutritional value. And even though it can really hit the spot at times, I wouldn't ever envy a person who spent their time seeking out each & every different taco or yeeros they can find in their town, because there is so much better food on offer, if only you are prepared to put in a bit of time & dedication (but of the light & easy kind of effort that you get when you're doing something you enjoy). Others may compare casual promiscuity to something more like a degustation menu; a chance to sample all kinds of different, delectable tidbits, in conveniently limited portions. There may be merit in that argument; I don't know. It's just never been much to my personal taste. * Italian style grilled cheese sandwich

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:33:18 -0800

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:46:47 -0800

How about "go & fight in Iraq"?

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:47:55 -0800

wait, i think i messed up my double-negatives there.

By: Sidhedevil

Sidhedevil — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:51:44 -0800

I think it's clear that someone who's not willing to have sex or be openly sexual to the degree our society expects is going to be heavily handicapped in navigating the dating field and finding a relationship. No. Someone who is asexual or not interested in sex is unlikely to be an appealing candidate for dating or relationships with someone who is interested in having sex. There is no way that this is a bad thing. Libido mismatch is one of the main reasons relationships fail. However, I think there should probably be more dating help for asexual people and other people not interested in having sex--perhaps having that as an option on dating sites, or somebody creating a dating site specifically for asexual and low-libido folks. Failing that, perhaps being honest with one's partner about serious incompatibility is the right solution.

By: naju

naju — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:51:48 -0800

Name a single characteristic that could not replace "have sex or be openly sexual", though. I'm not sure what you're saying. I don't think, say, "not willing to play sports" is equivalent to "not willing to fuck in the near future." One is considered pretty central to dating in our society, the other isn't.

By: Lord Chancellor

Lord Chancellor — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:57:07 -0800

I can understand a certain amount of this. I mean, even in this forum, people come in saying how much sex they want, how they wish to be Sex Emperor, how they are ravenous for anybody and anyone. Now, I don't think the people saying these things actually would screw anything that moved, but that mindset is becoming more and more acceptable (not necessarily a bad thing) while the inverse might be taking a beating (a bad thing). I think this article does confuse custom with morality, but if one says "No, thanks" or "Ew" or anything else in reference to unbridled promiscuity, they shouldn't be seen as regressive. I've personally seen some young women have sex not because they felt they wanted to, but because they felt they should as part of being a young woman in the environment they were in. This is just as big of a problem as young women being called slut, because both times a legitimate personal and intimate choice is being continuously assigned for the society to make, which I feel is a real shame. If people want to have sex, that's great, but no one should feel that not having sex is somehow unpopular or silly or regressive.

By: ZenMasterThis

ZenMasterThis — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:05:27 -0800

I'm always there just to drink. You'll dance to anything...

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:07:22 -0800

I mean, even in this forum, people come in saying how much sex they want, how they wish to be Sex Emperor But on MetaFilter, you'll find that a lot of them just want to do it so they can refer to themselves as "I, Chlamidius".

By: valkyryn

valkyryn — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:11:53 -0800

Perhaps the single most effective pedagogical moment of my college career was during a seminar entitled "European Enlightenment." My professor, who was more than a little eccentric to begin with, suddenly threw himself at the concrete wall next to the door yelling "I can't go out this way!" The class, of course, was convinced that he'd finally flipped. But after a minute, it made sense. We were talking about the frustration experienced by many late modern philosopher-types who found that though they had succeeded in throwing off the stifling chains of the Church and equivalent forms of authority-based society, that had found themselves in a materialistic world which in its own way was no less constraining. Try as he might, will as he would, the professor truly could not exit the room by any means except the door. The philosophical result of this was existentialism, but concluding that man is "condemned to be free" is not exactly the kind of liberating joy that the original Enlightenment thinkers thought they were achieving. I think the author of the article in question is attempting to get at something similar here. The twentieth century saw what was supposed to be the great liberation of sexuality, casting off the horrid chains of traditional religious morality only to find that we're at least as neurotic--and far more public about those neuroses--as we ever were. In short, we have substituted anxiety for guilt, which is a lateral step at best. Not the most original conclusion, but an interesting one nonetheless. For those who think that this is completely bogus, I suggest to you that the film 40 Year Old Virgin could not have been made in a society where there was any reason to feel anxious about being such a person.

By: nebulawindphone

nebulawindphone — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:26:12 -0800

I wonder how many people actually feel comfortable disclosing a low sex drive early in a relationship. I get the sense most of my friends would have an easier time saying "I'm a rubber chicken fetishist" on the third date than "I only get horny a few times a year" — but that's just anecdotal, and anyway I have no idea if it reflects the larger culture we're part of or what. Still, my suspicion is that most people — even people who are otherwise very open-minded and sex-positive — would struggle with it. And I think that says something about our attitude towards sex, even if it's not as one-sided as the article makes it out to be.

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:38:15 -0800

Still, my suspicion is that most people — even people who are otherwise very open-minded and sex-positive — would struggle with [disclosing a low sex drive]. And I think that says something about our attitude towards sex Case in point: Life as an Asexual Couple (previously on MeFi - a 189 comment shitstorm of assumptions, projections, second-guesses & incredulity)

By: escabeche

escabeche — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:43:30 -0800

I suggest to you that the film 40 Year Old Virgin could not have been made in a society where there was any reason to feel anxious about being such a person. I suppose I agree in the abstract, but I sort of doubt my grandparents or their grandparents lived in a world where a man of 40 who had failed to find a mate would be hailed as a model of modesty and virtue.

By: schroedinger

schroedinger — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:11:52 -0800

First, let's be honest: this article is about women. Men were never expected to be chaste or lack lust (unless you're talking about the concept of "courtly love" I guess). A crucial part of stereotypical masculinity has been virility and sexual prowess. I think the author has a good point to make. I increasingly see a lot of women who feel pressured to be the "tiger in the sack" or whatever--having threesomes, sucking dick like a porn star, professing their love for all kinds of kinky shit--but are not necessarily comfortable with or desiring of the actions that The Crazy Sex Fiend is supposed to perform. The hypersexual role for a young woman can be as much of a reflection of her true sexual drive and desires as the Virgin Nun persona. Demanding that women adopt that facade isn't liberating, it's just as fucked up. But this author doesn't make that point--he's so obsessed with fancy wording and dropping intellectual-sounding references that rather than providing any real analysis the whole article comes off like pretentious, puritanical dogshit.

By: aramaic

aramaic — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:20:44 -0800

A crucial part of stereotypical masculinity has been virility and sexual prowess. All of your following remarks could refer to this, but they do not. Interesting, from a societal perspective. This is not intended to be a huge discovery, or any of that crap. It's just intended to be an observation.

By: Sidhedevil

Sidhedevil — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:24:15 -0800

I wonder how many people actually feel comfortable disclosing a low sex drive early in a relationship. I don't see the advantage for either party in not disclosing it. If one person has a significantly higher sex drive than the other, and the relationship is monogamous, then either one person is going to be having sex they don't want or one person is not going to be having sex they do want. That's not a recipe for happiness for most people. It's the same with a lot of other things: frugal people and spendthrifts face challenges when coupled, especially if one or the other pretended to be different during courtship. Introverts and extroverts often face challenges. Hell, day people and night people face challenges. Being honest about who you are and what you're looking for in a relationship is the move. First, let's be honest: this article is about women. No, it isn't. It's about how cultural expectations of women's sexuality affect men like the author.

By: Sidhedevil

Sidhedevil — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:26:08 -0800

I mean to say, this isn't about women at all, except for how the author thinks women should act. I have a strong vote for "why don't men shut up with the Big Cultural Pronouncements and let women decide how they want to express their sexualities?" Say what you like about the Elle magazine article he dismisses so blithely--at least it was probably written by a woman.

By: Monday, stony Monday

Monday, stony Monday — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:30:25 -0800

Er, I only dabble in French intellectualism, but isn't Bruckner basically a fucking joker? If I'm reading this right, the last three paragraphs mean: "shut up, you uppity gays and women". The guy assigns meaning to people's actions without saying who he's talking about; it's essentially meaningless, or, if it's clear (with the right decoder ring), a dick move.

By: schroedinger

schroedinger — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:50:20 -0800

[i]All of your following remarks could refer to this, but they do not. Interesting, from a societal perspective.[/i] Oh, absolutely--the sexual expectations placed on men is also a topic in of itself. But I didn't address it here, because that's not really what this article is referring to.

By: _paegan_

_paegan_ — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:59:47 -0800

I was really getting into this essay at first. Within the little sub-culture of my 80s Phx deathpunk scene teendom, I already felt the kind of pressure he's talking about. Come on, most of our clothing came from the fetish scene and it's influence was big in any city's "rebel" teen group. Since I continued to socialize and club in the same city through-out the years, I have even indulged in the hedonism offered at times, the fringier the better. And it got old. I felt I had something to say, even, about what he was saying and could contribute to the conversation. And then he lost me. It quickly devolved into High school newspaper op-ed + multisyllabic words + obscure citations. He should have stopped a lot sooner, before I got confused about his point. Wait, what?

By: mdn

mdn — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:17:50 -0800

However, I think there should probably be more dating help for asexual people and other people not interested in having sex--perhaps having that as an option on dating sites, or somebody creating a dating site specifically for asexual and low-libido folks. The asexual movement is an interesting development in the modern sex-obsessed world, but I think the dating site solution should be more general - just that one of the boxes you can check would be the degree of importance of sex to you, or how often you would ideally imagine yourself to have sex or something. One problem there is that this certainly fluctuates for some people, but I think the biggest hurdle is that that's not info people generally want to divulge before they've even met. Basically, there's a lot of room between "asexual" and "twice a day"... Some people are satisfied having sex once every couple weeks, some would feel starved with only 3 times a week. The very idea that there are social expectations - you haven't lost your virginity yet? You haven't got laid in how long? - is the issue, whether those expectations are higher or lower than what any particular individual experiences. I suggest to you that the film 40 Year Old Virgin could not have been made in a society where there was any reason to feel anxious about being such a person. Wasn't the whole point of the film the anxiety that Steve Carrell's character went through? If it wasn't an issue, there wouldn't have been a story.

By: afu

afu — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:20:24 -0800

For those who think that this is completely bogus, I suggest to you that the film 40 Year Old Virgin could not have been made in a society where there was any reason to feel anxious about being such a person. Judd Apatow is the number one conservative intellectual in the country.

By: Sidhedevil

Sidhedevil — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:39:25 -0800

The very idea that there are social expectations - you haven't lost your virginity yet? You haven't got laid in how long? - is the issue I agree. But it's not like there weren't other social expectations, like "good girls don't" and "wives don't enjoy it" and "women don't really have orgasms" before our current set.

By: Afroblanco

Afroblanco — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:59:32 -0800

I kept waiting for whoever wrote this to make something resembling a point, but came away thinking that they just like to write. I dunno, maybe there is a point buried underneath all that flowery prose, but I kind of felt like I was overhearing one side of an argument that was going on inside somebody's head.

By: mdn

mdn — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 20:11:45 -0800

I agree. But it's not like there weren't other social expectations, like "good girls don't" and "wives don't enjoy it" and "women don't really have orgasms" before our current set. Oh, absolutely - I think the author of that piece agreed to that. The point was just the pendulum swinging. In trying to correct for the anti-sex attitude, our pro-sex attitude has become almost as restrictive.

By: Lobster Garden

Lobster Garden — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:14:15 -0800

Look, the biggest thing that's wrong with this article is NOT that the author doesn't write perfectly idiomatic US English. What I was intending to convey with my original comment is that the "disposed of" remark is a symptom of the sexism that is pervasive throughout the article. The basis of the entire article seems to be that women shouldn't enjoy their own sexuality. this isn't about women at all, except for how the author thinks women should act. I agree with this completely, and I think the diction (such as in "disposed of") reflects this attitude. /end rant

By: msalt

msalt — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:26:12 -0800

The problem with this article is that the author has totally objectified sex, which is why he prefers objective social strictures to tell him whether to sleep with someone or not. It doesn't occur to him to feel whether a relationship is spontaneously calling for it. Or that such feelings might guide others, though nature seems pretty good at pushing people along that way. 40 year old virgin Call me judgmental, but if you've reached forty without any kind of relationship where making out just kind of goes there, something is wrong. And is probably wronger with your relationships than with your sexuality. The problem is not the lack of a bishop to tell you to get married, or don't do that.

By: Crane Shot

Crane Shot — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:35:45 -0800

Is it possible that the author has his electric sex pants on too tight?

By: Target Practice

Target Practice — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:48:54 -0800

I'm surprised nobody else has commented on this seeing as how it's in the first paragraph: In short, 'whore' had become a title showering glory on the holder—a sort of prefix in the game of love. The conversion of an insult into a matter of pride is proof enough that our world has changed. To which my response is simply: What? I'll grant I'm pretty socially insulated so maybe this is just me not being hip to the times, but I put it to you: Have you ever heard anyone use the word "whore" in a positive context?

By: Monday, stony Monday

Monday, stony Monday — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:00:54 -0800

By: Monday, stony Monday

Monday, stony Monday — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:10:13 -0800

On a more serious note, Bruckner doesn't tell us which edition of Elle he's talking about, or who was asked whether they were a "whore" or not. Which is why I think he's a jackass. I think "whoring" or "être une pute" can widely be taken as doing whatever you do mostly for the money. And I think many intellectuals would be willing to admit to that. And it wouldn't have much to do with their sexual practices (or lack thereof).

By: thedaniel

thedaniel — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:47:26 -0800

Target Practice, I have known more than one woman that has approvingly described herself as "slutty".

By: citron

citron — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 23:48:27 -0800

I wonder if this was translated awkwardly from French. The "dispose" might be from the reflexive "se disposer" which would probably have meant, in context, to be ready to do something. Plus the sentence structure makes it hard to read, that too is a translation issue. If I'm reading this right, the last three paragraphs mean: "shut up, you uppity gays and women". Sort of. At least, not very content with people differentiating themselves.

By: Target Practice

Target Practice — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 01:12:05 -0800

I have known more than one woman that has approvingly described herself as "slutty". "Slutty" and "whore" are two different words. "Slut" just means someone who's promiscuous. "Whore" means someone who sells their body for money. Admittedly the connotations of both are generally negative, but "whore" implies the lowest of the low to a lot of people; someone who's willing to do anything for pay (the fact that most prostitutes are pretty desperate and are probably unable to get a legal job that pays anywhere near as well notwithstanding).

By: BrotherCaine

BrotherCaine — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 01:38:48 -0800

Metafilter has already discussed asexuality.org, but if anyone missed it...

By: Optimus Chyme

Optimus Chyme — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 02:26:38 -0800

It's not a great article, but I think it's clear that someone who's not willing to have sex or be openly sexual to the degree our society expects is going to be heavily handicapped in navigating the dating field and finding a relationship. posted by naju at 3:26 PM on December 2 It has nothing to do with what "society" expects (Lord, how I hate that phrase); it has everything to do with what a potential mate expects. If you don't want to have sex before marriage or at all, great; find someone at church. No one is putting a gun to your head. Goddamn, the very idea of this makes me so irritated. "If you're not willing to have sex at some point you might have trouble dating people who expect sex in a relationship." No shit!

By: valkyryn

valkyryn — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:57:47 -0800

msalt: QED.

By: naju

naju — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 07:58:36 -0800

If you don't want to have sex before marriage or at all, great; find someone at church. No one is putting a gun to your head. How dismissive. That's great if you're the sort of Christian who believes in sex before marriage. What if you're not religious and don't want to have fundamentalist Christians as your sole dating pool? What if you'd just like to know someone for more than three dates before you get physical? I think there are plenty of people, men and women, who are like this but feel pressured to act otherwise by a culture that emphasizes sex over everything else. Hell, just yesterday I was watching the (hardly prude, and not religious) comedian Maria Bramford and she admitted she's having trouble with relationships because she doesn't like to get intimate immediately. No one is putting a gun to her head, but isn't this particular dating problem worth discussing? Goddamn, the very idea of this makes me so irritated. "If you're not willing to have sex at some point you might have trouble dating people who expect sex in a relationship." No shit! I don't know why you're irritated. It's an obvious point to me as well. It's worth considering the troubles these people are going through, and I don't think this topic is brought up enough. When it is brought up, such people are usually mocked or dismissed. No one is calling for censorship of Britney Spears's body or a return to religious repression or anything like that, so chill out.

By: louieyak

louieyak — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 08:57:43 -0800

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 08:59:52 -0800

Woman are now the ones who must be satisfied. Can be scary sometimes. Huh? Are you just getting in your mandatory comments before posting a link?

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:32:07 -0800

i_am_joe's_spleen: There were severe social and even criminal consequences in the past for all kinds of sexual acts, whereas no one is coming after me now for my lack of erotic achievement -- it is up to me to believe the hype and find myself wanting, not a matter of state intervention. Well, true. Although I think we often underestimate the sexual proclivities of the past. But having done a reading through the great volume The Cultural History of Masturbation, just because there isn't an explicit law against a sexual practice doesn't mean that there are not hundreds of patent medicine pamphlets which say that a sexual practice is emotionally, morally, or physically harmful. So certainly while we don't have criminal laws against chastity, abstinence, or a lack of desire, we certainly have a whole bunch of patent-medicine peddlers ranging from advice columnists like Dan Savage who have no more qualifications than any other man on the street, to metafilter, to the sexual self-help guides of popular media which define not having sex as freely or as often as some arbitrary ideal as a form of harm. Sidhedevil: Being honest about who you are and what you're looking for in a relationship is the move. Of course, this is ignoring the entire reality that your sexuality can and probably should change over time. The question is what kinds of compromises and accommodations people are willing to make as these changes happen, and I don't see that the first impulse to go for DTMFA is necessarily a good one.

By: Optimus Chyme

Optimus Chyme — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:42:58 -0800

What if you'd just like to know someone for more than three dates before you get physical? I think there are plenty of people, men and women, who are like this but feel pressured to act otherwise by a culture that emphasizes sex over everything else. You do not owe anyone anything, nor does anyone owe you anything when it comes to dating. If you don't want to sleep with someone after only three dates, don't. If that person decides that this is a dealbreaker, which would be extraordinarily rare, that's his or her right. If their desire to engage the physical is a dealbreaker, that's your right. Your comment and the attitude associated with it are weirdly parallel to the complaints of Nice Guys who think they are "owed" dates. They are not. No one is "owed" sex, no one is "owed" not-sex. What if you're not religious and don't want to have fundamentalist Christians as your sole dating pool? Well, sometimes we don't get everything that we want.

By: naju

naju — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:01:49 -0800

Bizarre. I'm not saying anyone is owed anything. I thought I made that clear. Of course people have the right to reject partners for ANY reason. My deal is that we should at least talk about and be aware of the ways in which culture shapes our perceptions and actions on a macro level - hardly a controversial position in any other topic, so why here? (And comparing my comment to the "Nice Guy" syndrome is actually making me laugh.)

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:11:04 -0800

Huh? Are you just getting in your mandatory comments before posting a link? Hey, just because you didn't agree with the tone of a comment is no reason to beat up on the new member or accuse him of being a self-linking spammer in waiting.

By: Mental Wimp

Mental Wimp — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:29:09 -0800

I hate this kind of forced contrarian social commentary that has to posit a nonexistent social meme in order to provide the reader with a display of the writer's oh-so-much-more insightful recognition of its implications. Prudishness wrapped in psychobabble.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:38:34 -0800

Optimus Chyme: No one is "owed" sex, no one is "owed" not-sex. Except that's not really the case is it? At least one of the big insights of the sex-positive movement was that it's really difficult to talk about sex acts, much less negotiate their roles within a consensual relationship, if those acts are considered to be taboo and indulged in by people with undesirable characteristics. So there was a fair amount of effort and time spent making the case that everything from masturbation, to BDSM, anal sex, casual sex, same-sex attraction, and the occasional rape fantasy were positively mundane and pedestrian desires and can be reasonably incorporated into a sexual relationship. But that doesn't seem to be the case in regards to differences in sex drive and desire, where the loudest voices argue for a one-way standard of "good, giving, and game" unless there is some metaphysical 300lb monster lurking within one's sexual history that overrides that. The end result is that the expectation for compromise seems to always involve one person putting out rather than creative solutions that satisfy the needs and boundaries of everyone. And there are legitimate concerns regarding certain double-standards and increased expectations. If the sex-positive movement is going to mature into something that advocates freedom of choice, it needs to make the same argument for "prude" that it did for "slut." Just as it's wrong to shame a person for enjoying a certain consensual kink, it's wrong to shame a person for not enjoying that kink.

By: jokeefe

jokeefe — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:56:45 -0800

Woman are now the ones who must be satisfied. Can be scary sometimes. Yeah, especially when we report you to the Orgasm Police.

By: fairywench

fairywench — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:01:22 -0800

All this stuff about people with a low sex drive, but has anyone thought of this: just because I don't want to have sex with someone right away, it doesn't mean I have a low sex drive. On the contrary, I have a very high sex drive. I also happen to be damn particular about who I want to have sex with. If I don't want to have sex with you, it's not because I have a low sex drive, it's because frankly, you're not good enough. You're not what I want. You're not smart enough, or nice enough, or ethical enough, etc. Or if you are smart enough, etc., then maybe it's just too soon. I don't have sex with strangers. To me, sex is the most intimate form of communication between two people, and I don't get intimate with someone unless I totally trust them. And that takes time. Certainly more than 3 dates. When I'm in a sexual relationship, then my sex drive is usually..wait, ALWAYS higher than the man's. But for me, the men that are worth it are very few and far between. When I find one, though, it's definitely worth the wait. And by the way - frankly, most men are not nearly as good in bed as they think they are. I'm not man-bashing here, I'm telling you what your wife or girlfriend won't. Why bother having sex with a random man when the shower massage will do a much better job? This post, of course, will be followed by an outpouring of comments by men telling me that I must have bad taste in men, that they're sorry I haven't been with anyone good, that they, of course, are excellent in bed. Guys - You're wrong. If you think you're good, then you're not. If you hope you're good - if you ask for directions and pay attention and you can actually talk about sex with your partner, then there's hope for you, but if you think you know techniques that work, then you're not good, because even if it works once for one women, it won't even work for her every time and for another woman, it won't work at all. So what I'm saying is, I'm not going to waste my time with just any man. That doesn't make me frigid, it means I have self respect. I don't need for you to think I'm hot in order to feel good about myself. And I don't eat cheap nasty chocolate, and I won't have cheap, nasty sex with you - until I know you very well, and I know you're worth it. There, weren't expecting that, were you? You were still thinking I was a prude, weren't you. See?

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:06:25 -0800

fairywench: And by the way - frankly, most men are not nearly as good in bed as they think they are. I find this to be an equal-opportunity badness.

By: zarq

zarq — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:12:53 -0800

I sometimes feel as though we men have lost our place. Its what our fathers fathers wished for, free unadulterated sex. Yet it comes with a heavy price. We are no longer the top. Woman are now the ones who must be satisfied. Can be scary sometimes. I honestly can't imagine how making an effort to share pleasure equally in a sexual relationship by satisfying women sexually would be either scary or a hardship. Perhaps I should turn in my man card. (Good at all Home Depot stores nationwide!)

By: fairywench

fairywench — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:20:37 -0800

fairywench: And by the way - frankly, most men are not nearly as good in bed as they think they are. I find this to be an equal-opportunity badness. Probably so. In large part because of what all this is about. Being good in bed has very little to do with techniques or running around naked at parties, and everything to do with pleasing your partner. If your partner is a stranger, then you're not going to care about pleasing them. Also, the current idea of what is good sex seems to involve multiple strangers, odd locations, and public nudity. But those things have more to do with people who have low self esteem trying to make others think they're wild, crazy, and good in bed, than with actually being good. Yet it's always seemed to me that what men like from women is self confidence - enough self confidence to do what feels good instead of worrying about how big your butt looks. But of course, if you just met the guy, you aren't going to trust him, and you're going to be worrying that you're not good enough, not thin enough, whatever, rather than concentrating on the actual act. There seems to be a complete lack of education/communication regarding..um, I"m not sure what the protocol is here, so I'll be polite, yet blunt - Most women have no idea how to perform oral sex well. And they won't ask the guy what, specifically, he likes. And why not? Because she just freakin' met him and she doesn't feel comfortable asking him. Also because most people seem to have forgotten that getting there is half the fun. To be rather clinical about it, an orgasm is heightened by a long, intense build-up. But no one has patience for that any more.

By: Sidhedevil

Sidhedevil — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:24:23 -0800

just because I don't want to have sex with someone right away, it doesn't mean I have a low sex drive I don't think anyone was implying this? People were talking about how unfair it is that folks are expected to have sex while dating someone they enjoy dating (at least that was how I understood it). It seems to me that that would be more of an issue for asexual and low-libido people than for people with an average or high sex drive. Agreed that it makes sense only to have sex with the people you actually want to have sex with. On the other hand, the "don't be a prude!" bullying aimed at encouraging people to have sex they don't particularly want has been around for at least 50 years in Western culture, so it's not like this article is covering any breaking news.

By: mdn

mdn — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:06:22 -0800

I'll grant I'm pretty socially insulated so maybe this is just me not being hip to the times, but I put it to you: Have you ever heard anyone use the word "whore" in a positive context? I don't know if it's exactly a positive context, but I don't think I really hear it used in a negative context - I've mostly heard it used in a jokey context, either sort of self-deprecating or teasing friends sort of thing. So, basically it comes down to a positive thing because you're part of the gang if you and your friends can tease each other about being "such a whore", whereas no one is going to have a friendly way to call you a prude. That can only have negative connotations. I'm sure people do still use it as a real insult, but I think it's fair to say the use has shifted. We talk about "attention whores" (or any number of other metaphorical uses); the NYT referred here to a joke about renaming Halloween "Dress Like a Whore Day" in talking about revealing costumes for women... The word is definitely not as strong an insult as it once was, and is often taken in a humorous spirit to mean something like "sexy lady". just because I don't want to have sex with someone right away, it doesn't mean I have a low sex drive I don't think anyone was implying this? Well, people bringing up asexuality and going to the church to meet your match and so on, imply that either one agrees to the current social norms (sex by the 3rd date, etc), or they must want to have little to no sex. A person can want lots of sex but not right away, or want less sex than you but not be asexual, or simply have different needs at different times. On the other hand, the "don't be a prude!" bullying aimed at encouraging people to have sex they don't particularly want has been around for at least 50 years in Western culture, so it's not like this article is covering any breaking news. That's certainly true, but I think the difference is that in the current culture we've lost sight of the possibility that we're bullying people, because we've couched it in so completely in terms of enlightening or liberating people. That is, there's a recurrent mythology that people who don't want more sex must only think they don't want it, because they're repressed, and if we could get them the right vibrator (or whatever), and open the door for them, then they too would become the sex maniac we all are on the inside. The idea that they actually just aren't as into it is viewed skeptically.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:44:45 -0800

And there certainly has been a fair amount of discussion out there regarding something that I'll call kink-creep. One can happily make the beast with two backs, but still be called out as a prude for not being good, giving, and game regarding oral, anal, shaving, or BDSM.

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:52:15 -0800

Cummer police: Arrest this man, His bedroom technique Is making me feel ill - And where's my favourite dildo?

By: donnagirl

donnagirl — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:21:18 -0800

Hey, just because you didn't agree with the tone of a comment is no reason to beat up on the new member or accuse him of being a self-linking spammer in waiting. Usually very true, but in this case, Burhanistan happened to be right.

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:29:00 -0800

Heh. He smelled funny.

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 21:43:11 -0800

wow. that's the last time i stand up for the funny-smelling noob. or, better put: louieyak thought he could fool the 'stan With his imitation posts But he had not accounted For the psychic nose. He did not know there is no Cabal on the site And even if there were, louieyak would not be among it.

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 22:48:50 -0800

I guess it just goes to show..