« Previous 1 2 View All Next »
I like sex.
I realize that this is the sort of declaration that ranks right up there in obviousness as “Hey, the sun rises in the east!” and “water’s a bit wet, i’nit?” but stick with me here, I have a point I’m getting to.
I’ve been reading Clarisse Thorne’s “Confessions of a Pickup Artist Chaser
When I was younger and less experienced – back in the bad old days – I liked sex but didn’t really know much about it. Less of a case of not understanding the mechanics or only routine in my repertoire being “writing letters with my tongue” but about human sexuality. I had absorbed a lot of misinformation about sex and sexuality from the culture I grew up in, especially as a white, hetero, cisgendered male. As far as I knew, sex was something of a transaction: guys bargained, cajoled, argued, convinced, begged or otherwise persuaded women into performing some sex act – ideally some penis-in-vagina action – and women would give in. Sometimes reluctantly, sometimes with enthusiasm but rarely without some form of negotiation. The fact that men wanted sex was something of an inconvenience at best, something actually shameful at worst. Being called a pervert – if, say, you were caught watching Porky’s, Embrace of the Vampire or the Phoebe Cates scene from Fast Times at Ridgemont High – was among the worst things you could label a guy.
After losing my virginity, I was – I shit you not - shocked when my girlfriend was interested in having sex again… like, the very next day. Without my having to put on a production or anything! Oh, what brave new world that had such people in it!
Still, even after being introduced to a world where women actually -gasp- enjoyed sex, I still clung to the belief that men were the horny ones and women had to be persuaded – which is to say, turned on or seduced – into wanting sex in equal measure. This colored a lot of my interactions with women, especially with how I was going about trying to convince them to go out on a date (and then, ideally, come home) with me. I wasn’t seeing sex – or romance, for that matter – in terms of “here’s a fun thing we can both enjoy”, I was seeing it as “what do I have to do to get you to sleep with me.” It was an adversarial process – one encouraged by society at large – and one that simultaneously demonized and praised male sexuality while insisting that female sexuality was less important, if it existed at all.
Dating was a ritualized kabuki dance; while we both knew that sex was a possibility, I had to take care to not express any overt interest in it lest I look like a pervert who Only Wanted One Thing. I had to display enough value in order to make it worth her time to give me the opportunity to try to persuade her into sleeping with me. It was exhausting and it meant that I wasn’t treating her as a person but as a vault whose combination I had to learn in order to get inside.
And from talking to my friends… I was decidedly not the only one who felt that way. We all felt the annoyance that we had to pretend that we didn’t want what we so obviously did and the frustration that women just didn’t know what it was like for guys. Men and women were just too different.
It took quite a bit of effort to break out of the antagonistic view of sex and realize that a) women were sexual beings too and b) it was ok to want sex. The problem wasn’t the interest, the problem was the way that we were all taught to go about getting it.
The Paradox of Male Sexuality
The way our culture defines male sexuality is problematic to say the least. We’re constantly beset with conflicting messages about just how a man is supposed to be, sexually. Male sexuality is equally something to be scoffed at, ashamed of and celebrated… as long as you don’t deviate from the accepted norm.
On the one hand, male sexuality is portrayed as one of constant horniness. Men are supposed to get rock-hard erections at the merest hint of stimulus (such as, say, a stiff breeze…) and ready to go at the drop of a bra – we don’t need no silly “foreplay” or anything so silly as “setting the mood”. One common joke: “How do excite your man? Show up.” The other joke-but-not-really is that men are so horny and oversexed that they’d fuck spongecake if it was warm enough.
Or an apple pie, for that matter.
For a man, according to the common message, sex is the alpha and omega of our lives. If you’re not interested in sex, you are not a man. We will do almost anything in the name of getting laid – travelling across the country on the hint that we might have sex (The Sure Thing, Euro Trip, Sex Drive), subject ourselves to any number of indignities (The Last American Virgin), lie about who we are (Wedding Crashers) or what we do (ditto) or make any number of promises we may or may not have intend to keep (Paradise By The Dashboard Light). Sex is a part of everything we do as men.
Come on, rockets look like that because WE WANT TO FUCK SPACE!
Men are expected to want to fuck as many women ((I mention women specifically because male sexuality is still predominately defined as heterosexual. Gay men are also frequently seen – and portrayed – as wildly promiscuous, but this is frequently held against them.)) as possible; restricting oneself to just a single woman is jokingly referred to being “tied down”. Any number of people will happily provide any number of reasons and explanations – ranging from evolutionary psychology to the effects of testosterone – as to why men should not be expected to be monogamous and should instead be free to spread their seed as far and wide as possible. Sleeping with as large a number of women as possible is something to be celebrated – certain celebrities (Wilt Chamberlain, Gene Simmons, Hugh Hefner, Warren Beatty) are known for their level of promiscuity as much as for their professional accomplishments. The higher the number… well, the more manly you are.
Of course, this glory only fits within specific standards. It doesn’t count if you’re sleeping with women who fall outside the conventional definition of beauty1. If your desires fall outside of the accepted stereotype – most commonly young and busty with a narrow waist and long tapered legs – well there’s something wrong with you. If you are attracted to, say, heavy women or older women… well, that’s fodder for comedy right there because real men aren’t into that.
And if you’re a virgin more than a few months past puberty… well shit son, something must be wrong with you, because a man is not a virgin! Men get laid.
At the same time, however, male sexuality is also seen as a joke or even something to be ashamed of. Ignoring more extreme ends of the spectrum such as Andrea Dworkin’s Intercourse, male sexuality is commonly portrayed as awkward, buffoonish or barely restrained animal instinct. In film, television and comics, sex makes people stupid. The womanizer characters are often also either the moron or the man-child. Men can’t hold a conversation with a woman without attempting to look down her shirt, can barely spit out two sentences to a woman who he finds attractive without making a Freudian reference to her breasts, vagina or having sex. The man who has lots of sex partners is shown to have something wrong with him, emotionally and needs a Good Woman to heal him and teach him the wonders of monogamy. Women were disturbed, even disgusted by any noticeable expression of sexual interest whether verbal or physical (inopportune erections, anyone) and yet the man simply can’t help himself.
Being told simultaneously that you were supposed to be a stud and that women found sex icky does not make for a well-balanced view of sex growing up.
Not, mind you, that women have it any easier.
What Do You Mean “Women Like Sex Too”??
You wouldn’t think it, but the idea that women are sexual beings, with wants, lusts and needs just like men, can be a difficult concept to wrap one’s head around. We live in a society where we are taught that men and women are diametrically opposed by their very nature; men want sex, women want love. Men are logical, women are emotional, etc.
On it’s face you would think that this would be self-evident, but growing up I – and damn near everybody else – were implicitly taught that women were not sexual the way that men were. Men might crave sex but women… women, we are taught, tolerate it. Since the Victorian era, it has been axiomatic that “real” women were chaste and endured sex because it was her womanly duty. Hell, until the late 19th and early 20th centuries, women liking, even wanting sex was considered to be a symptom of hysteria. Even with the Free Love era of the 60s and the Sexual Revolution of the 70s, female sexuality was still defined by a man’s needs first and foremost.
These days, women are subject to the same paradoxical treatment of sexuality that men are. Women are supposed to enjoy sex, but almost as a performance for men. They’re taught to walk a thin line: “be sexy… but in this very specific way.” Fashion and trends in clothing encourage a very particular body type and to decorate it and display it in pre-approved manners. Express your sexuality, but only in these particular ways. Fit yourself into this very narrow mold and you will be rewarded by men But for all that our culture says women are supposed to be sexy, they’re not supposed to be sexual. To be sexual is to like sex a little too much. Liking it too much means you’re giving it away too easily and we all know the label afforded to women who give up the goods too early or to readily…
Even now, the woman who craves sex, has more than one partner at a time or is interested in non-procreative sex (anal sex, fetishes or kink) is frequently shown in pop culture to be in equal turns untrustworthy, damaged or a figure to be laughed at.
And of course, there’s still that persistant voice in western culture that insists that sex is dirty and shameful and should only be shared with someone you love in the bonds of holy matrimony.
Considering the tightrope that society demands they walk, it’s small wonder that many women have a hard time coming to terms with their own sexuality. Even in this day and age, it’s still incredibly common for women to not know what makes them orgasm until their 20s or even 30s.
This schizoid view of female sexuality – that women should like sex, but only in specific ways following particular models – contributes to the fucked-upedness of our sex-negative culture and the antagonistic way that we see sexual relations. It’s one thing to be able to acknowledge, intellectually, that yes, women were sexual beings just like men were, that women liked sex, even wanted sex the same way that men did. It’s another to be able to internalize it.
The Commodity Market Of Sex
For me, 20+ years of conditioning was hard to shake off. I had bought into the commercial, antagonistic view of sexuality and it colored the way I approached women and sexual relationships.
The way that western culture approaches sex – even in this enlightened age, with vibrators for sale in your local Wal-Greens and where sex-tapes make people instant celebrities overnight – is to treat it as a commodity. Sex as goods. Women have it, men want it and the market sets the price. It’s a zero-sum game – the more a woman gives away, the less she’s worth, therefore she needs to hold sex in reserve in order to get the best price for it.
Like this, only with vaginas.
Women -so the cultural model goes – are expected to hold out to get as much as they can: financial security, romance, relationships, marriage and children. If they sell their goods – sex – too cheaply, too quickly or too often to too many people, the laws of supply and demand define her as being “devalued”; i.e. a slut.
Men, on the other hand, are expected to get as much as they possibly can for as low of an investment as possible. A man who pays too much for too little – someone who can’t “seal the deal” quickly or who don’t get sufficient levels of sex (either from one partner or many) in exchange for a relationship” – is seen as less of a man. A “pussy” even, because what could be more insulting for a man than to be compared to female genitalia?
Even the Nice Guys fall into the commodity frame of sex; they view sex (or, more euphemistically, a “relationship”) as something that is rightfully theirs as long as they collect enough Nice Guy tokens. Once they have enough, they can redeem their tokens in exchange for the sex that they’ve been working towards.
The commodification of sexuality is an inherently antagonistic system that treats men and women as fundamentally different and sets them in opposition – the “Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus” model if you will. The idea that sex is a matter of winning and losing even permeates our language. When men have sex they “get some”, or “get lucky” or “seal the deal.” Women “give it up” or “give it away” or “surrender to him”. We talk about the “thrill of the chase”. Pickup artists refer to meeting and seducing as “The Game” – with it’s inherent implication that there is a winner and a loser and the loser is the one who gives in.
In addition, it by it’s very nature stipulates that sex is only valued due to it’s scarcity – which in turn means that a woman is only worth as much as the sex she doesn’t have. A woman in this model who “gives it up” too easily or too freely or too often is seen as worth less. Men are taught that a woman who is easily seduced is not a “high-value asset”; after all, if she gave it up her precious commodity so easily once, how many other times has she handed it out? At the same time, there is an expiration date; the goods are worth more the newer it is. Past a certain point… well, it’s hardly worth anything, now is it?
The commodity market model also doesn’t allow for anything other than a value-for-value exchange. It by it’s nature dismisses anything that falls outside of this frame. A woman who enjoys sex for it’s own sake are treated as shameful sluts and are worth less than “pristine” virgins. A man who might be monogamous by nature or might want greater levels of intimacy before sex is seen as a freak.
Sex As Collaboration
When I was starting to make my transformation, I wasn’t consciously thinking about the transaction frame that defined sex for me at the time; I was thinking about concepts that the PUA community would dub “Demonstrations of Higher Value” - evidence that would convince women that I was “worthy” of being given sex… because it wasn’t like there were that many women who just liked sex for it’s own sake, right?
Changing the ways that I thought about sex took a lot of work. The first step – accepting that women liked sex too – was the hardest; I still had literal decades of cultural indoctrination to overcome. Part of what helped was a female friend of mine handing me a copy of My Secret Garden by Nancy Friday, which compiled various women’s fantasies as an overview of female sexuality. From there it was a matter of education and a willingness to question a lot of what I thought I knew. I did a lot of reading about human sexuality and a lot of discussions with my partners… not just about what I did that convinced them to go to bed with me, but about how they felt about sex and how and when their attitudes developed or changed.
And it helped. A lot.
There’s an excellent essay by Thomas MacAullay Millar called “Toward a Performance Model of Sex” that sums up the idea of a collaborative model of sex brilliantly, using the metaphor of musical performance:
The commodity model assumes that when a woman has sex, she loses something of value. If she engages in too much sex, she will be left with nothing of value. It further assumes that sex earlier in her history is more valuable than sex later…. But a musician’s first halting notes at age thirteen in the basement are not something of particular value. Only an obsessive completist would want a recording of a young musician’s practice before she knew what she was doing… She gets better by learning, by playing a lot, by playing with different people that are better than she is. She reaches the height of her powers in the prime of her life, as an experienced musician, confident in her style and conversant in her material. Her experience and proven talent are precisely why she is valued.
Because it centers on collaboration, a performance model better fits the conventional feminist wisdom that consent is not the absence of “no,” but affirmative participation. Who picks up a guitar and jams with a bassist who just stands there? Who dances with a partner who is just standing and staring? In the absence of affirmative participation, there is no collaboration.
Like the commodity model the performance model implies a negotiation, but not an unequal or adversarial one… Musicians have to choose, explicitly or implicitly, what they are going to play: genre, song, key and interpretation. The palette available to them is their entire skill set… Two musicians steeped in delta blues will produce very different music from one musician with a love for soul and funk and another with roots in hip-hop or 80s hardcore. This process involves communication of likes and dislikes and preferences, not a series of proposals that meet with acceptance or rejection.
Not feeling that every sexual encounter was a negotiation made things more comfortable. I was able to relax and be my best self instead of putting on what we both inherently knew was a performance. I stopped looking at sex as a competition – what do I have to do to get you to sleep with me – and more of a collaboration.
“But you have to admit, the negotiations were pretty damn hot.”
Being willing to admit that I was interested in sex – and understanding that yes, women liked it as much as I did – made things go smoother. It was more honest – this is who I am, this is what I’m interested in, this is what I have to offer – than trying to pretend otherwise. It made it easier to make the negotiation of sex that communication of likes and dislikes that Millar talks about rather than a process of “this is what I am willing to offer, how much will this get me?” It meant that there were fewer miscommunications; I wasn’t indicating that maybe, maybe I’d be interested in a relationship when I really wasn’t.
Accepting that you’re allowed to have the desires you do (or don’t) have and being willing to be honest about them allows you to be more authentically yourself… and in doing so, relate to the people you want in a more honest, open and collaborative way.
- a changing definition if ever there were one. [↩]
« Previous 1 2 View All Next »
Related posts:
Pages: 1 2
I still find it hilarious how much effort people put into impressing someone to get laid. It's a huge waste of time in my opinion. I honestly don't get whats so great about having sex. Maybe being a virgin I don't know. I'm not asexual I have ~desires~ but the whole concept of getting laid is so weird to me still. Sleeping with random people is gross to me to maybe thats why. I don't know I just think sex is a waste of time and energy. The stress of worrying about pregnancy and stds ain't worth it to me.
Anon: Your age (which I do not know) may have something to do with your perception of sex. Until I was in my very early 30's, I could really "take it or leave it" when it came to sex. (It didn't help that I wasn't attracted to my long-term partner at the time, but that's another issue altogether.) Also, being on birth control pills (either as contraceptives, or for another medical reason) can change your level of desire for sex (usually making it plummet).
But the bit about women's biological clocks kicking in in their 30's is absolutely true. I now know what an 18-year-old boy feels like. On some levels, it's kind of annoying. But, overall, it's rather glorious.
You can't really know what sex is like until you've experienced it. It's like saying, "I just think that chocolate ice cream is a waste of time and energy," having never had it. And it doesn't need to be all stress over pregnancy and STDs if you take precautions and talk to your partner. It also doesn't need to be about going out and sleeping with a ton of different people. It's about what *you* want to get out of it, and it's also about what you want to share with your partner. If you want a long-term, monogamous relationship, then that's great. If you want to have a series of shorter-term, monogamous relationships, that's great, too. And, if you want to sleep with a ton of people, then that (while much riskier) is also a completely valid choice.
But how can you say that you believe sex is "a waste of time and energy" without ever having had it? If it's something you're not interested in, that's one thing; but to put a valuation on it without having any real knowledge of it is doing yourself a disservice.
Furthermore, speaking as someone who currently has no interest in sex, there are benefits to having sex, which means it cannot simply be "a waste of time and energy". I am referring not only to the possible pleasure that sex can provide, but also the procreational effect – "making babies" if you will.
At most, you can say that, for you personally, the benefits do not outweigh the costs. Extrapolating from your own thoughts to anyone else's thoughts is practically begging for someone to prove you wrong.
Why do you put your judgment out there like this? It's not like we haven't all heard it before a million times, and yet the world still includes behavior you wouldn't judge as worthy. What are you expecting us to carry away from your post here?
EDIT: I think you really meant to say "Because I wanted to prove that I didn't really need my posting rights here anyway."
- Dr. NerdLove
As a general rule I'm not that interested in sex either, since I've no interest in casual relationships. When you find someone you care about though, who also cares about you … You'll quickly realize that under the right circumstances, sex is DEFINITELY worth it!
*sees mouse-over text for picture of rocket*
Is that a Portal 2 reference?
I think it is. XD
Really excellent article.
-e
This made me think of something. Just as men are socialized to think that women need to be convinced to have sex, I wonder how many women feel that they were socialized to think that men need to be convinced/conned/charmed in order to get involved in a relationship. I definitely feel that I was socialized that way, and trying to rectify it has been a huge unlearning process similar to the one the Doc (and I'm sure many other men reading this) went through when they realized women want sex too.
yea i was going to say that too! but also, this article sort of explains my boyfriend's old approach. instead of coming to me with suggestions of stuff we could do together, he would be like, "how come you don't do this or this?" or get sad that i wasn't "sexual enough" when i thought i was horny all the time? like, i was a freaking virgin before, how about i just don't know it exists, dummy
lol we've gotten better. but his approach back then made me feel down right horrible and sometimes not even want to try things 
Great article, this one really speaks to me. I was very suprised when I found out my current Girlfriend enjoyed sex as much if not more than me. I was convinced I would need 3 reasons and a diagram why we should do it. This topic really is fascinating
What does it say about me that when you mentioned "Millar" in the last paragraph that the image of the author of Marvel's Civil War sprung to mind? "Well, y'know, the sex usually starts off pretty good, but it just kind of ends with you asking… Wait, what the fuck was that?"
Joking aside, thanks for writing such an even-handed look at societal expectations of masculinity in sex as well as femininity. I know there are numerous times that I've felt like my masculinity would be called into question because it's very rare I get turned on by casual sex more than just feel kind of uncomfortable. To the point where I actively TRIED to have casual sex because I wanted to prove to myself that I could. I GUESS I succeeded, but it wasn't enjoyable.
I like being able to cuddle and converse casually before and after, be affectionate, and generally know the person pretty well (and have a sense of safety and trust built up) before I CAN get in the mood with them. I realize how sexist it is to think this now, but I felt more and more, I don't know, "girly" because I felt like that wasn't how I was supposed to feel, as a man.
I'm still in the midst of that transitioning period similar to yours, Doc, reading up on a lot of human sexuality (currently in the midst of She Comes First) and getting my dose of auditory education each week on the Sex Nerd Sandra podcast and a couple other sex ed oriented sites. It definitely relieves a lot of the fear of judgment to have a more accurate, informed picture of how INDIVIDUALS view sex, rather than our culture as a whole. I'm not out of the woods yet, but I'm trying. Thanks for the boost.
"Here’s a fun thing we can both enjoy" is a good and healthy attitude to have once you have acquired a certain degree of confidence and ease. But it won't be much use if you can't put yourself across.
The title of this post had me chuckling in recognition – for the longest time, I felt that sex was something that happened to other people, and chances are I missed some opportunities as a result of thinking that way. I genuinely felt that my having sexual desires was considered by all to be unwelcome, undesirable, and something I should damn well keep to myself. Keeping my sexual side on such an ultra-short leash probably contributed to being cast as the nice-guy-good-friend more than I would otherwise have been.
That performance model of sex is brilliant! I am stealing it forever and ever.
In other news, this entry is so relevant. Someone just posted on my newsfeed – a few minutes ago – one of those e-cards that says "For all the women that brag about how many men want them, just remember…The cheapest prices attract the most customers."
Ugh, how repellant. And it doesn't imply the commodity model of sex, it outright states it.
I can still remember my Mom giving me that age old advice. "Remember honey, why would he buy the cow if the milk is free?"
I remember looking at her and thinking. "What? I'm a cow now? Like, livestock? Really?" But I kept that one to myself and responded instead with, "Because he likes the cow? Because he can't imagine being with any other cow? Maybe the cow makes him feel happy to be around her."
At least it shut her up. Seriously guys. We get this from our MOTHERS.
I don't even want to get into the speech my Dad gave me a week before my wedding about how guys have certain needs. I almost laughed my butt off and had to say, "Trust me dad. It's taken care of."
*facepalm*
Okay, here's one area where I don't understand guys at all, even though I'm one:
For better or worse, it makes some sense that women would refer to other women they perceive to be promiscuous as "sluts" – I don't approve, but I can see where they're coming from (perceived competition and all that). But why would a guy who's not a religious nut get worked up about promiscuous women? They're spreading the joy around! Lots of guys wouldn't be getting any sex if it wasn't for promiscuous women! Is it just a sad ploy to put women in their place?
I don't know if it's a conscious decision to "put women in their place" but an internalized attitude. They don't know why they feel the way they feel about promiscuous women, they were just taught to think this way about them while absolving themselves from guilt over the same behavior. Depending on the guy (and if he's in a receptive mood) simply pointing out how messed up that attitude is enough to at least reconsider their biases, but it doesn't happen over night.
I would have thought that some men call women sluts because they think they're sleeping with the wrong men. It could be that a sense of entitlement to sex causes men to feel bitterness towards women that sleep with a lot of men that aren't them, because I don't think I've ever heard of a man thinking of a woman who's just slept with HIM with scorn and judgement.
In ye olden days before blood tests and DNA analysis, controlling female sexuality was – on a practical level – controlling paternity. One's mother is never in question. One's father may well be. Since you couldn't exactly prove paternity – and people were obsessed with bloodlines and not raising a cuckoo in the nest – the seemingly surest way to guarantee that your wife was spreading your genes and your genes alone is to ensure that a) she's a virgin when you marry and b) she never has sex with anyone else.
These days, it's because if $PROMISCUOUS_GIRL would sleep with just anyone then it means that $WOULD_BE_STUD isn't as special for getting into her panties as he would like to think.
Yeah, to follow up on the doc's reply, I've noticed from some recent conversations with men that for at least some of them, a lot of the "pleasure" is (still) gained from the act of conquest. There appears to be added status from being able to bed someone who is more picky–having the power to convince her to be with HIM over the others. To feed their competitions with one another, these particular guys will also play women off of each other to create jealousy, including by slut-shaming the women who enjoy having sex with a lot of different men for fun to the pickier women because 1) if they are at the center of cat fighting, they feel more important and 2) maybe they think they make the pickier women feel like they are "better" which will make them feel more "liked" by him and thus more likely to pick HIM and not his competitors? That's at least how I, a picky but far from prudish gal, listening to attractive and purportedly socially progressive guys talk about who they did and did not want to be with and why perceived it…
Hi, this is my first post. I really do not thing its possible to have a sexual system that isn't messed up in someway. Its sort of like Churchill's quip about democracy being the worst form of government save all others tried. The best we can do is the least bad sexual system. The current Western sexual system is the least bad out of non-theoretical present day alternatives or past ones. A culture that sees sex as a good thing is going to look down at people with bad sex lives or at least pity them. This will be especially true for men. We all know how a sex-negative culture is messed up.
I never actually thought of the contradictions men come against when it comes to sex, and I'm a bit ashamed at myself for not realizing what now seems like the obvious. It's nice to know, though, so when the time comes to talk about this stuff with my own son, hopefully he'll be a bit less bewildered with the conflicting information.
And as Clue-x-4 stated above, it does feel like women are taught that men need to be cajoled into relationships. Every romantic comedy ever feels like a guy trying to get sex and a woman trying to get a monogamous relationship in exchange. It's–really bizarre looking at it objectively. Or maybe it just seems bizarre to me. I haven't dated since I was 18 (when I met and started dating my now-husband) so the adult dating world is a bit of a mystery to me.
If we were both held to the same standards there'd be no issue. But we're not (for various reasons).
If we have such a conflicting message in the mainstream media and through how we're raised, could it be because we're really in a transitional age that takes a long time to go through?
I mean, we live in the internet age, when change occurs at such a rapid pace that I think we really sometimes have a hard time settling down and understanding how different the world is than it was when we (assuming a lot of kids from the 80s and 90s read this) were young. Just for me, I still think it's crazy that there are people out there who are JUST catching on that everything is on the internet.
But that;s the thing. This country, this world isn't just made up of people who blog and hang out on websites. It's made up of a lot of older people. People in their 50s and 60s who still run a lot of the mainstream media. For better or worse, it does aid to the confusion your talking about in the article.
And that's before you bring up the myriad of different ways people are raised on how they should view sexuality. Religion, Naive friends, embittered co-workers, the media, traditionalist grandparents, hippie parents, it's really no wonder that every can get confused when you have so many sources pulling on your idea of what your sexuality is supposed to be.
Ultimately I think that those ideas will die off as we as a society migrates more towards understanding as a lifestyle. But that could take a very long time, if it ever happens. Just my take.
I agree with your article and it was extremely well written and informative. I'm curious as to what you think about the part the generation gaps play in this?
My take is that we get conflicting messages about sex because of human nature rather than because we live in a transitional age. People are always going to have wide ranging conflicting attitudes towards sex just like they have about most other issues. Doctor Nerd Love frequently posts about the importance of being sex-positive but also why men should not feel ashamed about being virgins or not getting laid as much as possible. Personally, I think that a society that sees sex as a good thing, something that people should enjoy is going to have a difficult time dealing with people with bad sex lives. The way most people think is that if sex is good than people who do not have sex must be bad just like how people used to think that sex is bad, people who have a lot of sex are bad.
The most healthy way to think about sex is probably to treat sex like eating. People need to eat to survive. We recognize that eating could also be a major source of pleasure but do not necessarily view people not really into gastronomical joy as evil or wrong. Some people think food is nothing but fuel. They might be seen as slightly odd but they aren't denounced widely because of this belief. Others restrict what they eat because of religious or moral reasons. Again, more omnivorous fathers might believe that people who keep kosher or vegans are missing out on the joys of pork and dairy but they are usually tolerated with little judgment. We also recognize that a lot of eating habits are actively harmful for people and should be avoided.
Sex should be seen the same way as eating, treated as a necessary pleasure which humans possess a wide variety of approaches to, most of which are good or at least neutral but some are actively harmful towards the mind and the body. This going to require a lot of emotionally maturity on humans and a certain amount of self-censorship when it comes to expressing one's sexuality in most public places except where radiating it is the point. Others might disagree but boasting about one's sexual escapades is not something that polite people do. Its sort of like faulting one's wealth in front of the less well off, a best it shows that the flaunter is oblivious to the feelings of others. At worst, the flaunter is bully who wants to rub what he or she has in other's faces to make them feel inadequate.
Where is the space in our culture for men who value their virginity but don’t want to force their values on other people? It seems impossible to talk about these issues in either the “sex-positive” groups (who decry ‘slut-shaming’ even when one merely expresses a desire for a virgin bride) or the “sex-negative” groups (who condemn open-mindedness about sexuality even for people who aren’t doing it).
Is there any kind of third space for guys like me?
God, sing it, brother! You hit the point exactly. Thank you.
The lack of sexual education/orientation is something really serious, mostly because it DID NOT took place in the last 200 years, at least. Parents do little effort to clarify their kids' doubts and chat about behaviours. It shouldn't even start with puberty; we are sexual creatures since we're little, and our questions must be answered whenever we ask them with naturality, so we won't feel awkward about dealing with sex and sexual themes all of our life. And we'll deal with that side of our nature more freely.
I have a personal example. My father was always very open. He never felt completely comfortable talking about sex with his daughter, as he's a man and a father, but he's a doctor (so he know the mechanics in a pro-way) and he knows it was best to talk about it. So since I was little, if I had any doubt, he' answer me. He answered clearly, without sugar-coating, but with naturality and in a language I could grasp. I clearly rememebr being as young as 8 talking about some sexual themes with him, and I felt I could trust him. And as I grew up, I never had any problems to talk about sex with him. I trust him and he knows that, if I need orientation, I'll come to him.
However, my mother NEVER talked about sex with me. I'm 22 and still get very confuse clues about what she thinks about some behaviours and ideologies. Which makes me completely awkward, because I don't even felt comfortable to tell her I lost virginity – I ask my father to tell her. It puts us in a strange situation where we don't know absolutely nothing about each other in this sense, and I feel uncomfortable even with sex scenes on movies.
Why are parents so scared? Because they were told kids should grow wild and then reproduce the stereotypes: girls are taught to be "good" and "save themselves" for "mr. right", while boys are barely taught at all – they learn from movies and other boys that they're studs and women are a prize they need to get. Curiously, many women refuse going to bed with some men not because they're not attracted to them or they think they'll "worth less", but because going to bed with someone who jut wants to "score" is *degrating*. If you can turn the tides and see him as YOUR score, as YOU'RE using him TOO, then you may enjoy; otherwise, you're nothing more than a toy.
Sex is considered a separated art of our nature, something antinatural, sinful, and precious. Good Lord, human sexuality is as plural as humanity itself. Once people quit being completely hypocritical about it, we can grow healthier, without so many relationship and sex problems caused by a lack of communication and complete lack of orientation.
A lot of mens' hangups regarding women seem to stem from this idea of constant battle or competition with… well, everything and everyone. Women will compete for a man's attention, but it tends to be after she's determined he's worth fighting for. Guys, on the other hand, seem to compete simply to win the competition, regardless of how much they actually value the "prize". Where is this drive coming from, guys? is it just societal pressure, or is it something more personal than that?
I'm also a little concerned about the way society is blamed for many of the negative ideas and values that men have incorporated. People talk about society the way they do about The Man, or the Illuminati – a malevolent outside force that they have no control over. if you're a person, and you interact with other people, you're a part of that society and the way you act and what you consume influences the society you are in. And isn't rejection of societal norms supposedly a part of the teenage experience? Why then does this particular "societal norm" continue to persist, despite 200+ years of social change? Personally, I suspect something more fundamental to the male human nature is at work here.
There is some merit to this. Feminism and the sexual revolution changed quite a bit in heteorsexual courtship but not a lot. Men are still the ones who do most of the asking. On dating cites, I was only directly contacted by a women five times while I probably sent out hundreds of replies. Even when women express interest in a man, its usually in a more indirect manner than asking him out on a date directly. A lot of hangups might be ended if it was more common to ask men out directly.
This is assuming that men won't freak at women asking them out, which will probably be a common reaction at first "because thats not how things are done."
"A lot of mens' hangups regarding women seem to stem from this idea of constant battle or competition…Personally, I suspect something more fundamental to the male human nature is at work here."
lolz, right – because the Twilight movies were 2 men competed over a girl were *male* fantasy.
Look through any number of online personals stuff and you'll find a ton of girls deriding any guy who would "dare" to just "wink" at her – after all, she deserves him to put in a ton of effort before even thinking about writing back.
I honestly have no idea what kind of guys you're hanging out with that enjoy the competition for the sake of the competition – as I don't know – any. None. Zero. Porn is male fantasy (well some aspects of male fantasy) – she shows up and immediately takes off her cloths. Has any guy ever said "gee, I just wish there were 2 dudes fighting over the girl before one of them slept with her – I find them just having sex so boring!". lol.
When you think of the guy who gets laid in high school – is he the nice, sweet guy who doesn't like to offend anyone – or the captain of the football team, the epitome of male competition?
As a guy, I really don't know any guys who enjoy the process of competing for a girl. I'm sure there's a few out there somewhere, and I know plenty of guys who have a lot of drive to get with a girl (whether it's just sex or dating) who get there and find themselves disappointed – but no one who "compete simply to win the competition, regardless of how much they actually value the "prize". I'm sure there's people out there like that, but I don't think it's fundamental to male character at all.
Actually our high school's "band geeks" were notoriously sexually active, but go ahead and throw out some well-exhausted tropes, man.
So this one time, at band camp… Um, yeah.
I dont know any guy who likes the competetion. Like a poster above said, porn is male fantasy and women show up effortlessly in it.
And the reason why men go after so many women is that men are sexually attracted to a large number of women. Women, being the selective sex, only desire very few men.
I'm a woman, and I do NOT desire a few. Been around the block a few times, pal.
You must have been around the block with a particular type of men. Most women only want casual sex and flings only with a small percentage of men, who stand out in terms of looks, physique, sexual prowess etc.
Men are happy to chase average looking women for sex, as well.
A thought on sex as a commodity/sex as a collaboration/performance. To an extent, people want sex to be a commodity rather than a colloborative act/perfomance even if this mode of thinking results in serious problems for everybody. There lots of problems with thinking that you are entitled to sex. This blog discussed these issues repeatedly. Treating sex as a commodity prevents even more people, mainly heterosexual men, from assuming that sex is right. Most people understand that they may want the latest I-Pad but can't get it without spending money. Sex as a commodity helps a lot of people understand that they are not entitled to sex and makes lack of sex less frustrating.
You get an iPad by earning money and paying for it. If you have $300 to spend (or however much they cost), there's nothing really that Apple can do to stop you from buying an iPad.
Sex doesn't work this way (at least, not legally). It's not giving something for something in return. It's two people doing something fun together (or more than two people, if that's your thing).
Alternatively, there is a way for the sex as collaboration/performance model to address the entitlement issues, and it's really quite simple: a musical duet might require two performers, but there is no rule that says who those two performers have to be, so the performers themselves get to choose, and if one is not happy with being chosen to perform with the other, then they can easily walk away.
And I think if you replace "a musical duet" with "sex", the rest of the sentence doesn't even need changing.
Let me say that I really enjoyed reading this post, because this is a subject that I have been thinking about lately.
I have to admit that until now, not even the idea that women are also sexual beings who also want and enjoy sex ran through my mind…. Not because this is what I believed to be true, but just out of pure ignorance….
Plus, I now also feel much less guilty for wanting to experience sex already. My sister for example told me I need to be less eager when it comes to girls, but I interpreted it the wrong way and thought that she was blaming me for wanting sex with someone that I find attractive (both psychically and mentally). I now realize she ment that I need to approach this entire thing "as something fun two people can enjoy" and not take things too seriously.
So once again, thanks for the great post!
Wanted it…had it…enjoyed it…then the significant other doesn't want it as much as you do….that is what sucks. Or even when he does finally agree after your pathetic begging….it lasts 2 minutes.
Sigh….
Talking about sex is often difficult, but getting the courage to communicate is almost always better than silence. Have you sat down for a frank discussion of your unsatisfactory sex life? Be honest about your thoughts, feelings, wants and needs, and listen to his thoughts, feelings, wants, and needs. Maybe he will have something helpful to say, but I can't really guess at that. If after listening to him you have made no good progress, I can suggest two possibilities you can discuss. There are several medical conditions (such as hormone levels) that can pretty well kill the sex drive. If he's open to getting a medical exam it is possible he has some treatable condition. The other alternative I can think of is to suggest an open or semi-open relationship where you can get your sexual needs met elsewhere under some agreed ground rules. If he has little sex drive, it is quite possible that he would would not have a jealousy reaction to the idea. In fact he might even feel relief for two reasons – he may feel relief from performance pressure and he may feel guilt relief from the effect it is having on you. If he is open to that solution you may wind up doing it as much for his benefit as for your own. And I must add one important point – some people think the definition of "cheating" is having sex with someone else. I call bullshit on that. The proper definition of "cheating" is a violation of a commitment. Cultural conditioning declares that any marriage or other relationship implies a strict monogamous commitment. However I declare that people have every right to reach mutually agreeable terms and commitments on their own relationships. People have the commitments to each other that they choose to make with each other. *If* he were to agree to rules or conditions for you to get your needs met elsewhere, and you do not cheat on those rules or conditions, then you are NOT cheating on him. Anyone who says otherwise can just mind their own damn business.
The double-standards regarding sex are ridiculous.
We would all be so much happier if we were able to make choices about how we feel about sex, without judgment or reservation by those around us. If someone wants to wait until marriage, great. If someone wants to have lots of no-strings sex, great. If someone goes through a series of relationships, great. As long as the people involved in the sexing are all on the same page, why should it bother the world that, somewhere, a woman wants sex? Or that a man isn't rolling in as much pussy as he "should" be? (Or that a man isn't rolling in pussy at all?)
It would be great if we could all just accept that some people have different sexual needs than others, and let them go about their lives. Life's too short to be quibbling about whether someone's having too much or too little sex.
I love the spirit and entire content of your comment, Yuki. Couldn't agree more!
I think it's incredibly sad how men are often put into such a dehumanizing stereotype–that the average man has no thoughts or desires whatsoever outside of sex (cue cheap joke about how that's not true because they also think about tits/sports/beer/cars). I think it's awful that men are demeaned that way and many don't even notice or care that it's demeaning; I've personally met several who defend it. I guess it's easier to dismiss it than admit you don't fit the accepted norm, especially with how quickly men who don't fit in are labeled as "gay" or "queer", and how viciously those defined by those labels are attacked and ridiculed, but I would think it'd be even more insulting to be considered too stupid to think past your "primal urges".
Liking or loving sex is one thing, that's totally fine and it's nothing to be ashamed of in the least. But not wanting or needing it as much, or having no interest in it at all, shouldn't be a big deal either. Ideally, however much or little sex you want or need shouldn't be a source of shame, no matter who you are. As long as you and your partner(s) are clear on each other's needs and comfort level and all involved consent, it just shouldn't matter.
I had a good friend in the PUA community who held hard and fast to the 3 date rule. He also, having been tremendously successful at the game, made it a point only to go after the "high-value asset" women who required more finessing; a more "satisfying seduction", as he put it. He explained his modus operandi thusly:
- If a girl declined sex on Date 1, this aroused more interest and her relative "value" increased.
- If a girl declined sex on Date 2, his interested started to wane. If she had attributes that he still found fascinating (or was particularly gorgeous, and thereby would be a more triumphant "score"), he'd give it a final try.
- If a girl declined sex on Date 3, it was game over. Oh, and most definitely her loss.
What really bothered me about this approach, beyond the fact that the end goal was *always* sex and not a true connection, was how incredibly rigid the parameters were. Declining sex on the 1st date raises value (she's not promiscuous or a slut); declining on the 2nd date neutralizes value (maybe she's just a cock-tease); if sex hasn't occurred by the 3rd date, the girl was considered to be frigid or prudish, and no longer worthy of his time. And it made me wonder: could he (or anyone) truly subscribe to the idea that a woman's value should pivot so wildly and completely in just three dates worth of interaction?
It's such a challenge to strike a perfect balance where you can be a sex-positive, sensual woman who garners respect without being judged, reproached, or shamed in some manner. (I'd have added "in this day and age", but by all accounts it's been challenging throughout the whole of history.) The Internet – weird, wild, whiny, wonderful, wackadoodle Internet – frequently serves up the dichotomy of making things simultaneously better and worse. But it's always great to find those such as yourself, Doc, who are bringing awareness to the forefront.
Well, that information makes it easy for women to screen out the PUA's. Just don't have sex, period, for at least 12 dates or 6 months, whichever takes longer. Or, in the words of Jill Conner Browne "treat'em like shit and don't give 'em any!"
I think Gen X men are more conflicted, than Millennials. Dr. NerdLove sounds like he received the typical conflicting messages Gen X was raised on. Probably, most romantic comedies are written and produced by X-ers right now. It will be interesting to see the thematic and content changes when Millennials begin really making their mark on the entertainment industry as writers, directors, and producers.
This article contains a short discussion of Millennial manhood compared to the other generations' views of manhood (particularly the confused, angry men of Gen X!): http://artofmanliness.com/2012/07/12/the-generati…
Your "don't have sex, period, for at least 12 dates or 6 months, whichever takes longer" rule is only marginally less offensive than the PUA's 3 date rule. You and he are just playing opposite ends of the same sick game.
The reason behind this 3 date rule is not that the end goal is merely sex, but that how quicky a woman agrees to have sex with a guy, tells her how much she is attracted to him. Every guy deserves to be with a woman who is naturally attracted to him. If a guy has to make too much effort or convince her to have sex, it means he is making up for the lack of his desirability.
Good looking, attractive guys get laid early on in the dating process.
When I re-enter the dating scene I will hold to a similar rule. I've been burned by women who take forever to have sex before, and I will never be manipulated again.
The one thing I value more than any woman, I don't care if she is a 300 pound whale or Mila Kunis, is my self-respect. If a woman refuses to sleep with me, that's totally fine. But it is disrespectful to demand months of commitment before sex. The game doesn't work that way.
It's not always manipulation, and it's certainly not always about respect.
There are plenty of women who are very conservative about sex, not because they're trying to extract something from a man, but because they have conservative morals or tie sex to love. You don't have to date these women. If I was going out with a guy and he told me it would be a few months before he'd be comfortable having sex, I'd probably suggest we be friends and that he date someone else. No one else needs to date these people either, and if they end up alone, that's their decision. More often, they end up with others who feel the same way and everyone's better off.
But that doesn't mean you need to assume that people have bad intentions. Sometimes people are just different from you. You can decide they're not for you and move on. By the same token, I don't assume that guys who suggest sex – in appropriate contexts – on the first date for the zeroeth date are bad people who are trying to use me, assuming there isn't anything else to take offense at. They're looking for the kind of interaction that they're looking for.
I wish I had had this post to read when I was a teenage girl and so confused by my first partner's attitudes towards sex. After all, society seemed to indicate that women were the ones who thought sex was "dirty" and all the guys around put on such a show of being sexually confident, or as sexually confident as you might expect among people in their late teens. Now I realize there was a lot of projection and posturing. But it was such a surprise to discover these conflicting desires and ideas the good Doctor writes about in him. And it still saddens me when I think of how disgusted he was by his own body. And I'm sad for guys who are suffer from these conflicts now.
I grew up in a conservative environment where premarital sex was taboo and actually even self-pleasuring was a sin. Imagine my guilt ridden conscience when I started self-discovery at the age of 13 or 14 upon reading a "dirty book" my father kept, and reading Harlequin romances! I loved and loathed every minute of trying and enjoying things by myself. By the time I was in my late twenties I said "Screw it." and decided to have SOME kind of fun and I wish to heck I did it sooner. I'm in my late 30s now and regretting that I didn't let myself have more of what I wanted and enjoyed. Thanks for this enlightening article. It was a fun read.
Respect for the Romance readers!
Seriously.
There is not much wrong with male sexuality and how its projected in media.
If there is anything wrong, its with female sexuality and that needs to be corrected.
The fundamental difference between male and female sexuality is that women are much much more selective than men. They find very few men sexually desirable. They consider the vast majority of men to be unattractive. The average woman finds around 80% of YOUNG men to be physically UNattractive.
Men are sexually attracted to a much larger number of women. Men find most young women sexually desirable atleast some extent.
Even If we remove all the social cultural pressures regarding sex, The conflicting messages, the slut shaming etc, This inherent difference will still remain and cause a vast rift between sexual behavior and attitudes of men and women.
No one is denying that women enjoy sex…they just do so with very few men. Hence all the effort, the persuasion, the tactics, the game, the gifts, the supplication on part of men. Because most men are simply not good enough for JUST SEX as far as women are concerned.
"And if you’re a virgin more than a few months past puberty… well shit son, something must be wrong with you, because a man is not a virgin! Men get laid."
People need to spend a lot more time here. A man with good character may not tickle the fancy of any woman, ever. It does not make him a bad person. It's ridiculous to think that rejections from women for sex and dating somehow make him a bad person. BUT I've heard a lot of women say that guys should just relax and understand that if they are decent people then women will have sex with them. That's not true. It's possible to be a good person and to lack the characteristics that make one sexually attractive.
Since a man's character is tied to women sleeping with him (remember that "any decent guy can find women to sleep with and date" ) He becomes frustrated when he sees not-so decent men sleeping with women and having dating success while he has decent qualities and is not seeing sexual success. His character is really tied to some woman's opinion of him as attractive, but not as a decent person.
If we focused on defeating this myth as a society we'd see a lot less of a frantic race for sex among men. Plus, it's just a huge and harmful lie.
I really wish I had read this when it came out.
As a mid-30s man with little sexual experience, I'm beginning to see how harmful these beliefs have been to me, especially the second one about believing that women will loathe me as a "pervert" if I accidentally reveal that I like sex, or erotica, or fantasizing. Add to that the fact that I'm not very attractive in a classical sense and I grew up with a lot of domestic violence and it's no wonder I wanted, even needed, to "protect" women from my sexuality the same way I wanted to protect them from abuse.
Any tips on how I might learn to deal with this part of the equation? I'd love to share them with my therapist.
Thanks for the article- as a teenager, this helped me feel a lot more comfortable with my sexuality.