In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Great Things

Jill
Whiskey = GREAT.
Whiskey = GREAT.

So apparently my sentiment that “sex is great” is controversial, because folks have taken it to mean “EVERYONE MUST LOVE SEX ALL OF THE TIME NOT MATTER WHAT.” Which is a silly way to take it, but hey, this would not be a feminist blog if we didn’t have a huge argument in the comment section over a relatively benign statement, right? Right.

So today I give you a list of other things that I think are indisputably Great. Great:

Pears.
Antlers.
Bourbon.
Exposed brick.
Tin ceilings.
Spaghetti.
Sea urchin.
Seltzer (especially pamplemousse-rose-flavored Perrier from the one deli in my neighborhood that carries it).
Spicy red wine.
Puke yellow.
Red nail polish.
Red lipstick.
Edison bulbs.
Massages.
Tangerines.
Tiny mammals that are not rodents.
Beards.
Pie that involves fruit not cream.
Babies in bear outfits.
Hot peppers.
Isabel Marant bodysuits.
Antique stores.
Stretch denim.
Enormous gold jewelry.
Tacos made by people who actually know how to make tacos.
The fact that there is a taco renaissance happening in New York right now FINALLY.
Bacon.
Dogs.
This song.

Go ahead, prove me wrong.

119 thoughts on Great Things

  3. As long as that fruit isn’t bananas. I despise bananas. I hate the texture, I hate how sticky they are, I hate those strings that hang off of them, and I hate how they make everything around them reek with their scent.

    [/rant]

  5. But do you feel sorry for us if we don’t enjoy the same things?

    (Seriously, way to miss the point.)

  8. @Nahida –
    My dad cuts off the not-banana handle end of the banana and swears it’s because the little black thing inside is where bugs lay bug eggs. I have NEVER heard this before (probably because it’s bullshit), but now I’m leery of bananas.

    Where do key lime pies fit in? They are fruit, but are also creamy happiness. (Although I have no idea if cream is involved in the making of said pie). Also, one of my favorite people in the world makes a lemonade pie which is kind of similar to key lime, and it is a great thing.

  9. PrettyAmiable: @Nahida –
    My dad cuts off the not-banana handle end of the banana and swears it’s because the little black thing inside is where bugs lay bug eggs. I have NEVER heard this before (probably because it’s bullshit), but now I’m leery of bananas.

    *is horrified*

    McSnarkster:
    But do you feel sorry for those of us who don’t enjoy those things?

    I thought she meant she does if you enjoyed them once, no longer do, and would like to enjoy them again…?

  10. Nahida: I thought she meant she does if you enjoyed them once, no longer do, and would like to enjoy them again…?

    See, but the “and would like to enjoy them again” was missing (for me, at least) from the discussion. I very much felt like the problem was with having liked/been interested in sex, and no longer liking/being interested in sex, regardless of the reason.

    (Also, to clarify my first comment: it is this post that feels mean-spirited to me, not McSnarkster’s comment; I was agreeing with the comment. Particularly given Jill’s use of “which is [silly]” to describe the reaction many commenters had to her piece.)

  11. People didn’t have a problem with you saying “sex is great”, they had a problem with you expressing pity for people who would rather do something else, and implying that something is wrong with them and they should try to fix it.

  12. Look, I get that this idea that “women don’t like sex anymore, full stop, no questions asked” is silly and that your intention was to debunk it.

    I just think you went down some roads, during the debunking process, which pathologize or hand-wring over people who used to have more sex and don’t anymore, or who used to derive pleasure from it and don’t as much now, and so on. You didn’t just say “sex is great”, and you know it – you also said that you pity people for whom it is no longer a “fundamental, great pleasure”. As someone who falls into that category, I resent being pitied about something I feel perfectly fine about, and that’s where I’m coming from.

    I feel like you name-dropped asexuality and less-sexuals so that they were “covered”, without truly factoring them into your analysis in a meaningful way. Because if you had, I don’t see how you can say something like “It makes me sad when I hear that there are people who don’t enjoy the same pleasures that I believe are fundamental” – i.e., “it makes me sad when I hear that there are people who don’t enjoy sex, because I think sex is a fundamental pleasure.”

    There’s a difference between saying, “For me, sex is a fundamental pleasure” and “Sex is a fundamental pleasure”. It’s an importance difference. Because, as we all know, sex is not a fundamental pleasure for everyone, and if you’re wording things as though it is, those people for whom your phrase does not apply are going to say so.

    Instead of saying something like “I know this isn’t universal, but [universalizing statement]” maybe we could do away the universalizing statements altogether?

    I’m not bringing this up in this thread or the other one because I’m trying to nitpick or cause conflict. I’m bringing it up because I hear casual statements like that from the sex-positive community often, and they make me feel bad and alienated. I know the intentions are good, but I’ve had a lot of hurdles when it comes to my sexuality, and having people say things like, “Aw, that’s sad” just because I feel pretty neutral about sex makes me feel indignant – like, come on! I’m pretty proud of myself and my sexuality! Just getting to a place where I can admit that I’m not that excited about it and enforce that as a boundary is really great for me, and feeling this subtle pressure from sex-positive feminists to enjoy something that they consider “fundamental” because otherwise I’m “missing out” just grates on me.

    I’m not missing out; I have a lot of pleasure and joy in my life, even though I’m definitely one of those females whose interest in sex has waned considerably. I agree with you 100% that pleasure is political, but please don’t feel sorry for me just because sex isn’t the outlet I get my kicks from.

    Anyway, I understand that I may have misunderstood you in that post, and I hope you also understand why this is something I’m sensitive about in sex-positive writing.

  13. Warning: rant ahead!

    If someone writes an insensitive, privileged post and then is called out because some people find it offensive, she has two options.

    One is to recognize that she made a mistake. It happens to everyone. She can acknowledge the validity of her critics’ feelings, accept the criticism, and learn from it.

    Two is to go double or nothing. She can insist that there is nothing offensive or excluding in what she wrote; she can dismiss the critics as overly sensitive and their viewpoints as invalid. Humor is a typical weapon in a situation like this – “Oh, look at those silly women and their irrational feelings. Why can’t they stop getting so upset about little things, amirite?”

    And yes, Jill, you did miss the point. “Sex is great” is your experience, and your viewpoint, and I’m not trying to claim that it’s invalid for you. But.

    For many women today (and, I would argue, for most women throughout history) heterosexual sex (the only sort society permits them) is not “great”. For them, sex is painful; sex is degrading; sex is about male dominance and male procreation, and – both biologically and culturally – men are predisposed to be actively hostile to women’s pleasure. (The single most common argument in favor of female circumcision, given by both men and women in the cultures that perform it, is that it makes sex less enjoyable for women. This keeps women ‘faithful’.) It is only very recently, among a very small percentage of men, that an ethos has sprung up which considers female pleasure as something worth trying for. If you are part of that circle, and you enjoy your experiences within it, congratulations! But please don’t universalize your own viewpoint: for many (probably most) women, saying “sex is great” is equivalent to saying “the patriarchy is great”.

    That ethos, by the way, comes with its own problems. Just as, throughout history, women have been blamed for male infertility, now – even if the man involved is brutal and incompetent – if the woman does not enjoy sex, it’s assumed that there’s something pathologically wrong with her. For many other women today, sex is not “great” because they have little or no desire for it – for many reasons, all of them valid – and they resent being told that something is wrong with them, or that they are missing out, because they lack that desire.

  14. Seriously Jill. Stop digging. This just makes you sound like a sneering jerk, and you clearly missed what most of those dissenting comments were trying to convey to you. But you also clearly don’t give a fuck because now you’re making the whole thing into a big joke, and also being disingenuous by severely simplifying the issue.

    People had very personal and emotional issues with something you wrote, and your reaction is to insist throughout the comments that they are OH SO WRONG about you and then put up a snarky little joke post about it? And you see nothing wrong with any of this?

    People told you that they felt condescended to. They said they felt insulted. They tried to explain to you – someone who is NOT a member of their marginalized group (of which I am a member, incidentally) – why your statements came across poorly, why they took offense. Instead of realizing that you are speaking from a place of privilege and hearing them out, you kept telling them why they were wrong wrong wrong. And now this.

    Massive missing the point award.

  15. I used to think that red nail polish was great, too, and then I stopped being interested in it. But I’m pretty sure there’s nothing wrong with me because of it.

  16. Ok just trying to make light of what was a really frustrating comment thread, for a lot of people (myself included). I recognize that plenty of people had legit points in that thread. But I am still going to lighten things, because nothing good was happening over there and I feel like I said my piece. It’s not intended to be mean-spirited at all.

  19. You know, this is a REALLY weirdly juvenile post coming from a prominent feminist blogger. You have massive, massive privilege being in a position to represent feminism and the interests of women in such a public, visible way, Jill. People aren’t always going to agree with everything you say, and sometimes you are going to make mistakes. That alone is not bad. It’s this reacting like a vindictive 12 year old when you are called out that makes me really cringe.

  20. Well, as a vegetarian, I take issue with the inclusion of bacon and tacos. And a list of great things that doesn’t include chocolate, Radiohead, Greece and Paris.

  21. I think this is one of those cases where we can say that if a lot of people are interpreting your words in a certain way, the problem is not that they’re all wrong. The problem is in your words.

  22. What mad the swine, alison and saurus said.

    And I’m sorry, Jill, but this so called ‘lightening the mood’ angle you went for is completely inappropriate. It comes across as a complete dismissal of the entire conversation. If you felt you’d said your piece, then WTF is this?!

    And it’s up to you whether or not you think anything “good” is happening over there. As someone whom isn’t a member of a marginalised sexual group, the conversations were actually really enlightening, and had me re-examining my privilege. Arguments or no, I found that the intelligent discussions and perspectives actually had a really *positive* effect, and made me question the structures of society in a way I hadn’t previously considered- and really, isn’t that what Feminism is *really* about?

    There’s a really good analogy for this sort of thing. Say you stand on my foot, and I tell you. You explain it was an accident, you didn’t mean to. You don’t carry on standing on my foot.

  23. “My dad cuts off the not-banana handle end of the banana and swears it’s because the little black thing inside is where bugs lay bug eggs. I have NEVER heard this before (probably because it’s bullshit), but now I’m leery of bananas.”

    I always heard that was the little banana version of seeds.

    “Where do key lime pies fit in? They are fruit, but are also creamy happiness. (Although I have no idea if cream is involved in the making of said pie).”

    Lime zest, lime juice, condensed milk, egg yolk. That’s pretty much all there is to it.

  25. Ah, but what if I used to like tacos, but I don’t anymore? Will I get “It’s so sad you don’t like tacos anymore! They’re a fundamental pleasure!” from you?

  26. I wish sometimes we could separate good intentions from malicious intent. Most of the things we say are, I would argue, rooted in good intentions. This doesn’t mean that they’re not offensive or insulting sometimes, but we sometimes judge them as though they were meant to deliberately injure. We all make mistakes based on that criteria. And if it isn’t me today, it’ll be you tomorrow.

    We’re very familiar with the sort of people who use malicious intent, because they contradict the very values we hold dear as Feminists. And we normally write lots of posts about them.

  28. Out, out, damn italics!

    Anyway…

    Ok just trying to make light of what was a really frustrating comment thread, for a lot of people (myself included). I recognize that plenty of people had legit points in that thread. But I am still going to lighten things, because nothing good was happening over there and I feel like I said my piece. It’s not intended to be mean-spirited at all.

    Hole. Digging. Stop.

    I understand that you intended no offense or mean-spiritedness. But please understand: what you see as ‘lighten[ing] things’, we see as an assertion that our point of view isn’t important enough to take seriously. Humor is best used when turned against the powerful and the privileged; if you use it to dismiss the concerns of people who are already feeling excluded and marginalized, it feels like mockery, even if it’s not intended as such.

  29. Bourbon?! You’re making recovering alcoholics feel bad now, Jill. Geez. And while we’re at it, wine is offensive, and cheese makes people who are lactose intolerant unhappy. In the future, please stick to cats (of the hairless variety, so no one who is allergic may be upset).

  30. Queen Maeve: You know, this is a REALLY weirdly juvenile post coming from a prominent feminist blogger. You have massive, massive privilege being in a position to represent feminism and the interests of women in such a public, visible way, Jill. People aren’t always going to agree with everything you say, and sometimes you are going to make mistakes. That alone is not bad. It’s this reacting like a vindictive 12 year old when you are called out that makes me really cringe.

    i second that

  31. I started reading Feministe years ago. Jill’s long been one of my top favorite bloggers because she’s so good about learning and so open about acknowledging her mistakes. If you write as publicly as Jill does for as long as Jill does, you’re going to step in it once in a while, you’re going to have an off day, you’re going to get frustrated, you’re going to say the wrong thing. It happens to all of us.

    I’ve been reading long enough to feel like I know Jill well enough to know that she’s not mean-spirited, she’s not trying to dictate from on high how everyone else should live, and she’s not trying to exclude anyone. She’s generally open and willing to engage and willing to self-examine. And I really appreciate that about her.

    I guess my point is, I didn’t wholeheartedly adore every single sentence in her initial post, but I’m willing to accept what she meant to say. I read her initial post and her follow-up comments in good faith.

    If you think that Jill is mean-spirited or ill-intentioned or eager to take digs at people just for being different from her, please take another look.

  32. I agree with Comrade Kevin. Frankly, a lot of the comments I see on this blog, however, are not good intentioned at all. They remind me of a group of high school girls that decide to socially ruin a former friend for some imagined injustice. I’m not sure if the mean-spirited commenters have noticed, but this is a blog. It’s not a medical journal or a court of law. What we’re reading here is not intended to be a devine writ; it’s for entertainment and, in some cases, education. I enjoy this blog, I love Jill’s sense of humor, but I just can’t hang out in the comments anymore because it’s ugly and counterproductive.

  33. People aren’t always going to agree with everything you say, and sometimes you are going to make mistakes.

    I am 100% sure that Jill is well aware of that already.

    That alone is not bad. It’s this reacting like a vindictive 12 year old when you are called out that makes me really cringe.

    Fair enough. But I’ve seen Jill respond to mistakes and missteps with grace before, and I’ve seen her stop and re-examine and change direction before, and I’ve seen her apologize before. So I know that if she’s not reacting beautifully now, that’s not typical. She doesn’t have a pattern of messing up and then refusing to admit it.

    So either this is an anomaly where she privately knows that she’s messed up but is too prideful to admit it (which doesn’t seem like the Jill I’ve been reading), or she doesn’t think that she’s in the wrong. Having read the initial post and comment thread, I think that she explained herself adequately. Your mileage may vary.

  34. I agree with Comrade Kevin. Frankly, a lot of the comments I see on this blog, however, are not good intentioned at all. They remind me of a group of high school girls that decide to socially ruin a former friend for some imagined injustice. I’m not sure if the mean-spirited commenters have noticed, but this is a blog. It’s not a medical journal or a court of law. What we’re reading here is not intended to be a devine writ; it’s for entertainment and, in some cases, education. I enjoy this blog, I love Jill’s sense of humor, but I just can’t hang out in the comments anymore because it’s ugly and counterproductive.

  35. zombies are irrefutably great. Go ahead. Prove me wrong. Game of Thrones opened with zombies (or maybe they were vampires — it’s a little unclear). And fer crying out loud different strokes, folks. Life is too short to turn on each other over scraps. Zombies, zombies, zombies. Or alternatively, Johnny Depp, my once and future crush.

    Maureen

  36. Uh, I can’t speak for others in this thread, but I am not suggesting that Jill is mean-spirited – and in fact I acknowledged that I believe she has good intentions.

    This is about what Jill said. It’s not about Jill.

    1. Yeah. I think these criticisms are fair, and I apologize. I got frustrated with the previous thread, because I think “not agreeing” is not the same as “not getting it.” I hear the criticisms and I think some of them (a lot of them) are totally fair. At some point, I just had to disengage out of frustration, and I started this thread to try to make the conversation a little funnier and make everyone get along. I see now, though, that it did come across as mean-spirited and unnecessary, and I apologize for that.

      But please do hate on my love for antlers 🙂

  37. preying mantis: I always heard that was the little banana version of seeds.

    See, and that’s what I figured because I tried googling it and I’m pretty sure there’s no way for bugs to get into a banana invisibly. My parents have a hilarious set of ideas that they won’t let go of no matter how much evidence exists to the contrary. For ex.: my parents both swear you can get a cold by having cold feet (i.e. not wearing socks in the winter time or by walking bare foot on tile). Nothing will convince them it’s transmitted just like any other virus. Another one – they always shut the windows during thunderstorms. I figured it was because of the rain – you didn’t want it getting everything wet. My sister told me it’s because they think you can build a pressure differential inside the house that will keep it from getting struck by lightening.

  39. One, that song is awesome! I hadn’t heard of Lissie, thanks for sharing that.

    Two, rereading the initial post I’m not seeing anything mean-spirited or inappropriate, there or here. It acknowledges that some people don’t enjoy sex, then goes on to suggest that if something that once brought pleasure doesn’t anymore, it might be more valuable to examine why that is than to simply declare a trend. At a time when the concept of human sexuality as a source of enjoyment is so under fire, I think it’s an important point.

    That post, and this one, seem to me to be about rallying around the things that bring a little joy into life. If your source of joy comes from something else, great! Let’s celebrate that too!

  42. This is mean. Accept criticism of your writing if you didn’t make your point in a way that spoke to people.

    Actually, everyone else above me said it better.

  45. ITALICS, YOU SHALL NOT PASS!
    Did that work? Probably not.

    Anyway, as an asexual, and someone who DID kind of feel upset about the post, I really don’t blame Jill. I didn’t read the comment thread, so maybe I’m making a silly assumption, but I really believe Jill knows what she’s talking about and that she didn’t purposefully insult asexuals or less-sexuals. It’s not so easy to write a post with so many people’s angles to consider, you’re bound to make a mistake eventually. She just did not word her post carefully, or she was busy making America the top wine-consumer in the world (just joking), but if we’re going to get anywhere, we need to have a little room for forgiveness, here. Or if it’s the case that she didn’t know, we need to educate. We can be upset, we can say harsh things, and I don’t blame anyone for saying those things, either, but grudges just make everyone tense and defensive. So here’s to forgiveness! Here’s to chances to learn and apologise! And perhaps, here’s to peace?

  49. I read the initial post as saying:

    – the world is divided into a minority of asexual people and a majority of sexual people
    – if you’re an asexual person, that’s fine
    – if you’re a sexual person who has lost interest in sex, that’s fine
    – but your situation isn’t ideal because sex is supposed to be a good and fun thing for you
    – I feel sorry for you (not clear if “you” refers to sexual people who have lost interest in sex or all people who are not interested in sex)
    – you should address your loss of interest in sex, because sex is great

    It’s easy to feel offended because:

    – what’s considered normal behaviour for asexual people is being problematised when displayed by “sexual people”
    – it’s assumed that there is this construct of “sexual people” for whom sex is supposed to be fun, and that if that isn’t the case, something is necessarily wrong – i.e. a “norm”

  50. I’m terribly sorry Jill…exposed brick is not great. It’s awful.
    (1) the mortar tends to crumble leaving sand residue and dust on your floors, bed etc.
    (2) even if perfectly sealed with that glossy plastic type sealant they use (acrylic I believe), invariably it will wear and release the sandstorm, plus who wants shiny walls covered in glossy transparent plastic chemical stuff?

    And LED bulbs are way way greater than Edison bulbs…I can finally afford the proper lighting system for my fish tank…and the bulbs will last 50K hours.

  51. It is only very recently, among a very small percentage of men, that an ethos has sprung up which considers female pleasure as something worth trying for.

    I’m sorry, but that’s just nonsense. Presumptuous nonsense.

    Also, as I said on that other thread – I think there’s a world of difference between validation and respect. The latter we owe each other. The former – not so much. But I think these two concepts get incredibly bound up with one another, esp. when it comes to online communication. A lot of important points were raised on that thread, regardless of this.

    Also, I am NOT dressing my baby in a bear outfit. A romper suit with a little bunny tail, on the other hand…

  53. Ugh. I have to admit that the undercurrent of righteous nastiness and hurt in both comment threads and this article are putting me off this blog entirely. Honestly, this is like something Feministe usually links to as having Gone Wrong Somewhere Else on the Internet.

  54. This has gone very, very wrong – the italics are taking over! Jill, what are your thoughts on babies in reindeer outfits in the winter? Two in one 🙂

  55. Anyone who took offence clearly did not actually read the article thoroughly. Or did not understand it. At no point was anything offensive to anyone mentioned. It was absolutely clear: “To each his own”.

    From a personal point of view; sex with my ex was something I could happily have lived without, and I find the less you have, the less you want, so I did not look outside of the marriage for so
    something I was not missing. Now, as a single woman again: let me at ’em!!! Sex is great. Marriage not so much. MY opinion.

  56. While most people seem to disagree with me on this one, I don’t think what Jill said was offense at all. She stated that her post was about women who once enjoyed sex and no longer do. Yeah, I guess she “named dropped” asexuality, but that makes sense because she wasn’t writing about asexuality. She was specifically talking about the women who were targeted in the article she was dissecting/ranting about.

    Furthermore, she clearly states that while she enjoys sex and doesn’t understand why people lose interest, that “I don’t think that the problem is 100% on women who once enjoyed sex and no longer do; there shouldn’t be any guilt or shame in that, because it just is. Those women definitely exist; men like that exist too. If you were once interested in sex but no longer are, it’s not particularly helpful to think that it’s Your Fault And You Are Wrong.”

    In my mind, this clearly takes the side of, “it is your body and you feel how you feel and do what you do. And props to you for knowing what you want.” This is not offensive. It’s writing from the viewpoint of a woman who has plenty of zest left in her sex life and thinks that an article about women who hate sex is being ridiculous. And that maybe, not all of them hate sex, but aren’t getting the right sex due to cultural norms and stigmas.

    Besides that, it’s a blog. Yes, blogs are important and have critical thought and should not be downplayed, but in the same breath, there is plenty of ranting, joking, and ridiculousness here. Let’s not bash each other.

  57. zuzu: eat. Go ahead. Prove me wrong. Game of Thrones opened with zombies (or maybe they were vampires — it’s a little unclear). And fer crying

    PILOTS AND BABIES!

  60. @mad the swine: Again, where is your evidence for this? Talk about making sweeping and absurd generalizations.

    And also, heavy fog, sweet potato empanadas, and Olivia Ruiz. Why is it that no one I talk to has even heard of Olivia Ruiz?

  61. Thanks for the comment @40, Jill. I didn’t agree with some of what you said in your last post, but man, I also know I couldn’t do what you do, being in the front lines of the feminist blogosphere everyday (I’m waaaay too thin-skinned and defensive, myself), so please know I give you a lot of credit for an inclusive spirit and an open mind.

  62. Enjoying sex – and saying it would be great if more people could enjoy it – is now oppressive and privileged? What fresh hell is this?

  63. ellen: Jill, what are your thoughts on babies in reindeer outfits in the winter?

    OMFG, I know this wasn’t directed to me, but it made me google this, and I felt everyone should share the joy.

  64. Hey, I read Jill’s post yesterday and it made me think why sex isn’t a fundamental pleasure for me anymore. I did think about it and thought, would I like to put effort into that area of my life right now to make it great? And after a day of pondering I decided no: I do not want to. Because to do that would be to take away from all the other things I am doing in my life. Certainly, I am not deriving sexual pleasure from these other things, but they are important nonetheless and I would not give them up for the kind of sex I had when I was younger and/or less busy. I do not think that Jill’s comment was mean spirited, but that in trying to focus upon celebrating the possibility of a woman’s sexuality and a woman’s pleasure — a good thing — she made good sex the most important thing that can happen in a woman’s life. I thought that for a long time too. But then I married, have two kids, one who does not sleep through the night yet, am writing my MA thesis, writing short stories and a book, am struggling to make ends meet, am wondering how I can find a well-paying job to improve our lives and help with our money worries, and read really, really good books. Sometimes I think about sex and long for a good lovemaking session, but at the end of the day all I want to do is cuddle with my kids in bed while my husband reads the kids to sleep and once they are in bed, cuddle and talk and laugh. Sex is not the only way to be intimate and, when life becomes too busy for good sex I find I miss sex much less than I’d miss taking the time to parent my daughters, cuddling with my partner of 12 years, reading what I like, losing myself in some story I am writing. Other people have more support from extended family and so probably have more time to themselves than do my husband and I. But this is our life and if sex is not one of my fundamental pleasures at the moment, I have to say it is only because it pales in comparison to the other pleasures I do have. Would I like to have more sex? I think so, although perhaps I am falling for the media-driven narratives which tell us life is about sex and being sexy. I feel free from that pressure right now for the most part. It’s not as complex as saying I am asexual, because I clearly am not. But life is more complex and I am more patient now than I used to be. I’d like to exercise more too at this point in my life, partially because of a media-driven narrative that says we all need to be sleeker and suppler, but also because I recognize that by exercising I will remain healthy longer. I’d like to travel more too — and that I do consider a fundamental pleasure. But right now in my life, great sex isn’t a priority and it doesn’t fit, neither do daily work-out routines and vacations in other countries, or vacations at all, really. I am okay with that, as I already said, because I have some other truly great pleasures in life, pleasures which feed my soul…
    Do you see?

  65. Heck’s going on here?

    I certainly enjoyed Jill’s article. I particularly enjoyed her line about how, once before, sex was OMGICANTSTOPHAVINGIT to Oh, Trash Night, Means Sex Night. The part that rang particularly on-point for me was how media portrays women as running out of mojo because of reasons that have little to do with how women lose interest in sex with their husbands/partners. Media and maybe even the lady next door makes jokes about how she and her husband agreed that they *must* have sex on Mondays and Thursdays, which happens to be the day the garbage truck comes to pick up their trash, and the whole damn world thinks it means that it’s just some kind of biological thing, when clearly, we all know it may or may not be that. It’s a bunch of other issues, like a combination of taking care of the kids, the husband, and the house, while keeping a carreer outside of the home, or maybe the lady is depressed and taking mojo-killing anti-depressants, or perhaps the husband just isn’t as eager to please as he once was.

    I took Jill’s entire article to mean that the world seems to think that they’ve figured out the entire Women Don’t Want to Have Sex With Their Husbands Anymore After A Few Years of Marriage, when they haven’t, and how that’s frustrating, because sex and how women deal with it is an whole new feminist revolution in itself, and it’s off-putting to me, at least, that the world is trying to define how women handle and perceive sex, whether you’re single, married, or asexual. For whatever reason we give up sex, it’s too bad how media affixes any stereotype to it, because the truth of the matter is, whether you like sex or not, it’s supposed to be a pleasure that everyone should be able to enjoy under their own terms. It’s a feminist issue when the general idea is that women aren’t interested in sex because “craving” for sex is a man thing, and that women who actually come out say they want sex should be medicated, or something. When you have to wonder, why can’t I just want sex because I’m a sexual person?, that’s where Jill’s article also falls into in the ven-diagram of feminist issues.

    It *is* too bad that some people would rather not, but I got from Jill’s post that it’s okay if you don’t want it. Only, it *can* be great. Whichever way you put it, it can be f*cking fantastic, and when you think something is fantastic, as a well-meaning, compassionate human being, you wish everyone can experience it the way you do.

    Still, I’ve never looked at a woman who didn’t want sex from her husband and thought of her as “pitiful”. I’ve never wondered about what asexuals did on their free time because I just assumed they did the same things I did when I wasn’t having sex. Since I view it that way, I assumed Jill thought of it the same way. As a feminist trusting another feminist, I didn’t even conceive of that from Jill.

    On a completely random note, I remember the time when everyone was just crazy for the series, Heroes, and I tried to like it, but I didn’t.

  66. What I gathered from the discussion was that it wasn’t the “sex is great” statement that was controversial so much as the “most women enjoy sex.” And although Jill hadn’t said as much in her statement, our society tends to read in to “most” statements.

    We still tend to see things in binaries. There are “most” a.k.a. “normal,” and the rest are abnormal somehow. And in women’s health, where so many have an opinion about what is “normal” and acceptable that the subject becomes triggery, it’s inevitable that some will react before realizing what was actually intended.

  68. @ Anna:
    It *is* too bad that some people would rather not, but I got from Jill’s post that it’s okay if you don’t want it.

    But why is it too bad that some people would rather not? Why pathologize something that’s not causing distress? That’s the point, I think, of a good deal of the objection. If people– in this case, women with declining sex drives– are happy and satisfied with their sexualities and sex lives even though said sexualities have changed from the past, why should anyone else have the right to say this is problematic, or sad, or deserving of pity? If a woman is distressed by her declining sex drive, then of course it’s perfectly valid to examine the societal factors related to the decline. But if it’s not perceived as broke, don’t fix it– and don’t make others uncomfortable by implying they ought to perceive it as broke, either.

    Only, it *can* be great. Whichever way you put it, it can be f*cking fantastic, and when you think something is fantastic, as a well-meaning, compassionate human being, you wish everyone can experience it the way you do.

    And as a well-meaning, compassionate human being, one presumably understands that not everyone will ever experience things the same way you do, and that you shouldn’t pity people who don’t have your same experiences.

    An analogy: I experience Christianity positively, and I wish others could have a similar experience. But if someone tells me, “No thanks, happy being [insert alternative]” here, and I keep trying to convince them otherwise, most people wouldn’t take that very well. Or if another woman continues to try to convince me that having kids is wonderful for her, that she wishes I could have that experience, and that she feels bad because I don’t want it, I’m likely to be offended, and rightfully so; my lack of desire to reproduce is not distressing me in the slightest.

  69. And as a well-meaning, compassionate human being, one presumably understands that not everyone will ever experience things the same way you do, and that you shouldn’t pity people who don’t have your same experiences.

    An analogy: I experience Christianity positively, and I wish others could have a similar experience. But if someone tells me, “No thanks, happy being [insert alternative]” here, and I keep trying to convince them otherwise, most people wouldn’t take that very well. Or if another woman continues to try to convince me that having kids is wonderful for her, that she wishes I could have that experience, and that she feels bad because I don’t want it, I’m likely to be offended, and rightfully so; my lack of desire to reproduce is not distressing me in the slightest.

    I agree with you, that it is as presumptive to suppose that something enjoyable to me ought to be enjoyable to other people. I admit that I find it difficult to look beyond sex as not beneficially enjoyable. So yes, there’s rethinking on my part about that.

    So from a standpoint of people enjoying different things, I think what’s unfortunate is that some people feel the need to feel sorry for others who don’t enjoy the things they do. I think in terms of wanting everyone to experience the joy, everyone is well-meaning in that. The wrongness is entirely in the “I feel sorry for you that you don’t like sex like I do” or “it’s pitiful that you don’t enjoy kids–you love them, you just don’t know it” attitude. It’s different when it’s things we all know is beneficial to have, like education, food, a home–we all agree, one way or another, that these are things everyone should have, but when it comes to things we can do with or without, it’s everyone’s prerogative to have some or not. It’s wrong to impose what you like over others, but it’s hard not to want to encourage others to feel joy where you find joy.

    I’m not saying the difficulty of drawing a line is an excuse–just that for me, it’s forgivable–something I could look past. Like the way I would, for instance, forgive an elder person who constantly gets in my business about having more kids, as if they’re the ones who would raise it and feed it and send it to college. Or how someone tells me I ought to watch Glee without the slightest clue that I’m not a fan of musicals. It’s annoying, but ultimately not something I’d judge his or her character on.

    I guess from my point of view, I probably should’ve been offended from what Jill said, since I fall in the category of the woman whose desire changed after years of marriage. I don’t think my desire for sex diminished–just changed, and for reasons that I felt Jill may or may not have expounded on, but called attention to, and I was appreciative that she pointed it out, even if it’s debatable whether she understood it.

    The onus is on Jill to be mindful of her wording, but I understand that there are so many lines to be mindful of. I felt that I could personally afford to focus more on the well-meaning part, since Jill has shown to have such open insight in general.

  70. If someone writes an insensitive, privileged post and then is called out because some people find it offensive, she has two options.

    That’s only if the criticism is accurate. In this case, it was mainly nit-picking and humorless.

  71. Also, anyone who likes beards is a sick pervert who shouldn’t be allowed into normal society. In fact, I’m going to stop calling them “beards”, a word I far prefer to use when discussing Kelly Preston or Katie Holmes. From here on out, I’m calling them “crumb-catching, germ-infested face pubes.”

    I expect this will create an entire separate shit storm which I will probably not even know about until someone mentions it to me at a party.

  72. I think what’s unspoken here is that, regardless of whether people want to admit/confront it, one person’s declining interest in sex *invariably impacts another person.*

    Sex (not masturbation) is fundamentally a two+ person activity. If one person decides not to have sex – for whatever reason – that means someone(s) else is not going to get sex, as well.

    I’d never suggest that a woman or a man has any kind of obligation to fuck their S.O. – that way lies marital rape and other horrible things – but, when one person decides that sex is not a priority, that doesn’t mean the other person has. And that’s where the discomfort comes from around this topic. Especially in the framework of monogamy, something has to give – either the still-sexual person bottles up their own urges or releases them in an illicit fashion, or the decreasingly-sexual person lies back and thinks of England.

    Those are the only two options. You can’t will away someone else’s sexual desires – I mean, you can probably try, but I doubt it will end well.

    This I think is why people get so angry – no one wants to be accused of stymieing their partner’s sexual desire or, conversely, putting an unfair and sometimes disturbing pressure on their disinterested partner. In an ideal Dan Savageian world everyone would be partnered to someone with the same drive, but the world’s not like that.

    I don’t know what the answer is. Our lives are longer but more filled with stress; sexual roles remain gendered; we’re now expected to marry for love and compatibility not economics and social pressure. In the middle ages some societies believed passion and romance was exclusively OUTSIDE of marriage. Some lucky people can sustain 30-40 years of sexytimes within marriage. Certainly even the olds get up to in nursing homes, so…

    I do think that we ought to spare a thought for those trapped in sexless marriages. I hate to say it, but if you’re the type that wants it 5 times a week, and you were getting that once but then your partner locks it down to once/month, I don’t really blame that person for leaving over that reason alone.

  73. So, the basic sentiment here is that no one, not even a prominent feminist blogger who’s reputation is clearly established is allowed to fuck up, or make jokes about a (dubious) fuck up and, most of all, we all must IMMEDIATELY assume bad faith, despite that long-standing reputation, because . . . . . .

    no clue. I thought we were on the same side. Are we not allowed to fuck up? Does the past mean nothing the instant someone fucks up?

  74. Those are the only two options.

    How wonderful that you’ve reduced the mind-boggling complexity of sexual relationships and negotiation down to two mutually-exclusive options.

  75. Tiny mammals that are not rodents

    So what’s your problem with rodents, eh? Some of my best friends are rodents.

  76. I think what’s unspoken here is that, regardless of whether people want to admit/confront it, one person’s declining interest in sex *invariably impacts another person.*

    Sex (not masturbation) is fundamentally a two+ person activity. If one person decides not to have sex – for whatever reason – that means someone(s) else is not going to get sex, as well.

    You know some people are single, right? Their declining interest in sex affects no one but them.

    And yeah, “there are only two options”? I strongly doubt that. Most folks I’ve met in long-term relationships have learned this thing called “compromise” which usually creates a third option.

    And I’m not going to apologize for being offended for someone saying any aspect of my sexuality deserves pity. Who made you the libido police? (And seriously? This post is juvenile, and the original post wasn’t that much better. “Sex is great”–so what? So is bacon, apparently, but do you go around pitying your friends who keep kosher?)

  77. Personally, I wasn’t bothered as much by Jill’s piece as many of the responses afterward.

  78. McSnarkster:
    I think what’s unspoken here is that, regardless of whether people want to admit/confront it, one person’s declining interest in sex *invariably impacts another person.*


    Sex (not masturbation) is fundamentally a two+ person activity. If one person decides not to have sex – for whatever reason – that means someone(s) else is not going to get sex, as well.

    You know some people are single, right? Their declining interest in sex affects no one but them.

    And yeah, “there are only two options”? I strongly doubt that. Most folks I’ve met in long-term relationships have learned this thing called “compromise” which usually creates a third option.

    And I’m not going to apologize for being offended for someone saying any aspect of my sexuality deserves pity. Who made you the libido police? (And seriously? This post is juvenile, and the original post wasn’t that much better. “Sex is great”–so what? So is bacon, apparently, but do you go around pitying your friends who keep kosher?)

    You don’t?!?

  79. CBrachyrhynchos: How wonderful that you’ve reduced the mind-boggling complexity of sexual relationships and negotiation down to two mutually-exclusive options.

    Situation: One person’s libido has declined and no longer matches that of the other.

    Possible solutions:

    1) Negotiate a compromise between the two levels.
    2) End the relationship on the basis that the mismatch is too great a barrier.

    Do you see another (ethical) option? Sure, you could have an affair or lie about being sexually interested, but those don’t seem, well, right.

  80. DP: 1) Negotiate a compromise between the two levels.
    2) End the relationship on the basis that the mismatch is too great a barrier.

    Two alternatives that are substantially less problematic than your original framing of (loosely paraphrased) “rape or nothing.”

  81. I take it your partner’s interest in sex has declined as well and that your partner’s sexual desire is on par with your own so that you are BOTH perfectly happy and sated with the way things are?

    Sex means different things to different people and sexual desires are on different levels for different people this only poses a conflict of interests when two people with opposing views and desires for sex and its importance are in a committed loving relationship. Either someone is secretly miserable having more sex than they want to have or someone is secretly miserable and sexually frustrated having far less sex than they want to have.

    michelle: Hey, I read Jill’s post yesterday and it made me think why sex isn’t a fundamental pleasure for me anymore. I did think about it and thought, would I like to put effort into that area of my life right now to make it great? And after a day of pondering I decided no: I do not want to. Because to do that would be to take away from all the other things I am doing in my life. Certainly, I am not deriving sexual pleasure from these other things, but they are important nonetheless and I would not give them up for the kind of sex I had when I was younger and/or less busy. I do not think that Jill’s comment was mean spirited, but that in trying to focus upon celebrating the possibility of a woman’s sexuality and a woman’s pleasure — a good thing — she made good sex the most important thing that can happen in a woman’s life. I thought that for a long time too. But then I married, have two kids, one who does not sleep through the night yet, am writing my MA thesis, writing short stories and a book, am struggling to make ends meet, am wondering how I can find a well-paying job to improve our lives and help with our money worries, and read really, really good books. Sometimes I think about sex and long for a good lovemaking session, but at the end of the day all I want to do is cuddle with my kids in bed while my husband reads the kids to sleep and once they are in bed, cuddle and talk and laugh. Sex is not the only way to be intimate and, when life becomes too busy for good sex I find I miss sex much less than I’d miss taking the time to parent my daughters, cuddling with my partner of 12 years, reading what I like, losing myself in some story I am writing. Other people have more support from extended family and so probably have more time to themselves than do my husband and I. But this is our life and if sex is not one of my fundamental pleasures at the moment, I have to say it is only because it pales in comparison to the other pleasures I do have. Would I like to have more sex? I think so, although perhaps I am falling for the media-driven narratives which tell us life is about sex and being sexy. I feel free from that pressure right now for the most part. It’s not as complex as saying I am asexual, because I clearly am not. But life is more complex and I am more patient now than I used to be. I’d like to exercise more too at this point in my life, partially because of a media-driven narrative that says we all need to be sleeker and suppler, but also because I recognize that by exercising I will remain healthy longer. I’d like to travel more too — and that I do consider a fundamental pleasure. But right now in my life, great sex isn’t a priority and it doesn’t fit, neither do daily work-out routines and vacations in other countries, or vacations at all, really. I am okay with that, as I already said, because I have some other truly great pleasures in life, pleasures which feed my soul…Do you see?

    I take it your partner’s interest in sex has declined as well and that your partner’s sexual desire is on par with your own so that you are BOTH perfectly happy and sated with the way things are?

    Sex means different things to different people and sexual desires are on different levels for different people this only poses a conflict of interests when two people with opposing views and desires for sex and its importance are in a committed loving relationship. Either someone is secretly miserable having more sex than they want to have or someone is secretly miserable and sexually frustrated having far less sex than they want to have.

  82. CBrachyrhynchos: Two alternatives that are substantially less problematic than your original framing of (loosely paraphrased) “rape or nothing.”

    That’s so loosely paraphrased that I daresay your paraphrasal has acquired quite a reputation around town as a speech figure of highly negotiable virtue.

  83. DP: Especially in the framework of monogamy, something has to give – either the still-sexual person bottles up their own urges or releases them in an illicit fashion, or the decreasingly-sexual person lies back and thinks of England.

    You are correct and I was wrong. It’s not rape or nothing, it’s rape or infidelity.

  84. Azalea: Sex means different things to different people and sexual desires are on different levels for different people this only poses a conflict of interests when two people with opposing views and desires for sex and its importance are in a committed loving relationship. Either someone is secretly miserable having more sex than they want to have or someone is secretly miserable and sexually frustrated having far less sex than they want to have.

    And reasonable and loving adults can often negotiate and compromise around this. It strikes me as extremely interesting that when these discussions arise, Savage’s DTMFA gets cited much more often than his admission that your lover is probably never going to be everything you want.

  85. Rape? How so? Because they are in a sexually monogamous relationship with someone who actually wants to have sex, someone they dont want to see have sex with other people? So I guess the compromise here is that its not ok to be a sexual person anymore if your partner decides that sex is the devil you better put on a chastity belt and a smile. I get it, the person who likes sex less is the one who wears the sexuality badge. Compromise is not rape, being ok with not tonight is the same as being ok with being a “good sport” for your horny partner once in a while. Otherwise brekaing up is BEST because FORCING someone to have sex or to NOT have sex is fuckery.

    blockquote cite=”comment-360251″>

    CBrachyrhynchos: You are correct and I was wrong. It’s not rape or nothing, it’s rape or infidelity.

  86. CBrachyrhynchos: And reasonable and loving adults can often negotiate and compromise around this. It strikes me as extremely interesting that when these discussions arise, Savage’s DTMFA gets cited much more often than his admission that your lover is probably never going to be everything you want.

    WHat negotiating do you suggest? Because apparently, having sex when you have no real interest in it for the sole pleasure of someone you love is deemed as rape by you. Giving up sex completely is NOT a compromise, that is someone forcing you into sexual misery via emotional blackmail. There is nothing compromising about that, its a sacrifice, a sacrifice they don’t have to and shouldn’t have to make. Wanting sex is like wanting kids wanting to live a certain place wanting to get married if you and your partner dont want those things equally there isn’t any real compromise, someone HAS to sacrifice leaving only one person truly happy.

  87. Azalea:
    Rape? How so?

    Because the phrase “think of England” is associated with marital rape culturally, and explicitly by DP in the other thread.

    Because they are in a sexually monogamous relationship with someone who actually wants to have sex, someone they dont want to see have sex with other people? So I guess the compromise here is that its not ok to be a sexual person anymore if your partner decides that sex is the devil you better put on a chastity belt and a smile.

    No, the compromise here is to negotiate a relationship in which both people’s needs and limits are met. Perhaps this means breaking up. Perhaps this means non-sexual physical intimacy. Perhaps this means alternative ways of having sex. Perhaps this means cultivating a health and self-sufficient masturbation habits. Perhaps this means non-monogamy.

    Perhaps this means breaking up over irreconcilable differences.

  88. Azalea: WHat negotiating do you suggest?

    See the history of both threads for examples.

    Because apparently, having sex when you have no real interest in it for the sole pleasure of someone you love is deemed as rape by you.

    Not by me, but by DP and multiple other people who seem to like commenting on this issue in dogmatic terms.

    Giving up sex completely is NOT a compromise, that is someone forcing you into sexual misery via emotional blackmail.

    Just because you would be miserable doesn’t mean that you can make that judgment for a few billion other relationships. Some people voluntarily choose celibacy. I don’t but it’s not something inherently worthy of disrespect.

    There is nothing compromising about that, its a sacrifice, a sacrifice they don’t have to and shouldn’t have to make. Wanting sex is like wanting kids wanting to live a certain place wanting to get married if you and your partner dont want those things equally there isn’t any real compromise, someone HAS to sacrifice leaving only one person truly happy.

    Hold on here. Are you really saying that every sexual difference in a relationship prevents true happiness? That, for example, I’m secretly miserable because I don’t have a partner willing to do penetrative anal sex at the moment?

    Do I get as much sex as I want? Of course not. Do I get what I need sexually? Yes. Am I able to do it in a way that respects my partner’s limits? Yes. That’s all that matters.

  89. FORCING someone to have sex or to NOT have sex is fuckery

    Giving up sex completely is NOT a compromise, that is someone forcing you into sexual misery via emotional blackmail.

    You’re wrong, and you’re being offensive.

    Refusing to have sex with someone is neither “fuckery” nor “sexual misery via emotional blackmail,” and is certainly not tantamount, in any way, shape, or form, to “forcing someone to have sex.” Declining sex does not “force” anyone into anything. Folk have a right to decide what they want or don’t want to do with their bodies; if their partner so desperately “needs” sex, they can seek it elsewhere or masturbate. No one is entitled to access to someone else’s body, and denying someone else access to one’s own body is not a kind of rape. Please stop comparing the two.

  90. Saurs: You’re wrong, and you’re being offensive.Refusing to have sex with someone is neither “fuckery” nor “sexual misery via emotional blackmail,” and is certainly not tantamount, in any way, shape, or form, to “forcing someone to have sex.” Declining sex does not “force” anyone into anything. Folk have a right to decide what they want or don’t want to do with their bodies; if their partner so desperately “needs” sex, they can seek it elsewhere or masturbate. No one is entitled to access to someone else’s body, and denying someone else access to one’s own body is not a kind of rape. Please stop comparing the two.

    That was in the context that it was wrong to leave a relationship where your sexual needs are not met, while I have no “right” to my husband’s penis he has no right to being with me forever in a sexless relationship against my will either. I can leave and I damn well would. I have no interest in forced celibacy or masturbation. One’s current partner is not the only person in the world who they have common interests with who would consent to have sex with them. That’s the reality. If you love oral sex and you’re with a guy who will never do it, you have teh option to leave that relationship without feeling shitty, especially if he pretended he WOULD do it or even LIKED to do it earlier on in the relationship. My point was one partner becoming asexual or less interested in sex doesn’t mean the other person suddenly loses interests and that ever so present interest or love even for sexual intercourse is something they deserve and can have wth another person, they dont have to forsake it forever and ever just for you or be deemed some kind of depe seated asshole. That was my point.

  91. P.S Refusing to have sex with someone and then demanding that person never has sex with anyone else (ie refusing to have sex with someone you’re in a monogamous relationship with) IS fuckery. Why demand they not have sex with anyone else KNOWING they want to have sex, if you’re just going to refuse sex outright (I am not talking about on occasion I’m talking about forever and in every instance your answer will be no). Sexual compromise arises on an occasional basis where one person isnt in the mood and the other is, but when that is ALWAYS or ALMOST ALWAYS the case, and the sexually interested party is expected to just masturbate there is fuckery abound. If sex is so meaningless to you, and so important to them you have irreconcillable differences and a breakup is best, not mean or hurtful its necessary. Cheating is awful and having sex you dont want to have everytime you have sex is worse. There is no real compromise in those situations, there is a solution: parting ways.

  92. Azalea: That was in the context that it was wrong to leave a relationship where your sexual needs are not met, while I have no “right” to my husband’s penis he has no right to being with me forever in a sexless relationship against my will either.

    As stated multiple times in both threads, of course it’s not wrong to break up a relationship over this. As far as I can tell, no one has argued otherwise. I have argued that relationships that negotiate around sexual differences should be respected as well.

    I can leave and I damn well would. I have no interest in forced celibacy or masturbation.

    Good for you. Not good for me.

    One’s current partner is not the only person in the world who they have common interests with who would consent to have sex with them.

    I strongly suspect that a person who’s %100 sexually compatible with me only exists in my imagination.

    That’s the reality. If you love oral sex and you’re with a guy who will never do it, you have teh option to leave that relationship without feeling shitty, especially if he pretended he WOULD do it or even LIKED to do it earlier on in the relationship.

    Sure, a person isn’t an asshole and shouldn’t feel shitty for ending a relationship. Neither is a person doomed to misery for figuring out a compromise.

  93. CBrachyrhynchos: I have argued that relationships that negotiate around sexual differences should be respected as well.

    I have a question. I’m using this quote as a springboard.

    When enthusiastic consent is brought up, is that an alienating concept to people who negotiate sex in relationships? I imagine the idea could be pretty shitty to asexual people in sexual relationships especially.

  94. If two people fully and consensually agree to be celibate, agree to non-monogamy, agree to alternative ways of having sex to get around medical and/or emotional limits, agree to split up over differences, agree to intercourse even though one partner might be anorgasmic, agree to a relationship where certain kinks are satisfied solo, why is it necessary to demonize the less-sexual partner as engaged in emotional blackmail? Why is it anyone else’s concern?

  95. PrettyAmiable: I have a question. I’m using this quote as a springboard.

    When enthusiastic consent is brought up, is that an alienating concept to people who negotiate sex in relationships? I imagine the idea could be pretty shitty to asexual people in sexual relationships especially.

    I think “enthusiasm” is a loaded word and the limits of it have been beanplated elsewhere.

  97. Ridiculous. If my SO gave up sex altogether tomorrow and for all time, I wouldn’t drop him. If that’s a deal breaker for you, okay! I have some of those too that you probably wouldn’t think are a big deal in your relationships. But its ridiculous to assume sex is a dealbreaker for everyone.

  98. Having napped, and awoke (ironically, was burdened with the mother of all stress headaches) it seems to me my done was perhaps, as CBetc. and others suggested, a bit dogmatic and haranguing.

    I meant only to suggest that the negotiation of these boundaries is likely high-tension and fraught (as these comments have showed) because it involves something very close and personal and the shrinkage of one party’s desire within a relationship implies another must re-assess their own fulfillment of a close and personal desire. The reason I think tensions get high over it is that the stakes are extremely personal and very interrelated.

    That’s all. Sorry if I offended.

  99. Well, since I can’t unthink it. I think enthusiastic consent is great early in relationships where the risks are high and the possibilities for miscommunication a lot more acute. But I’m not well wired for enthusiasm and it’s not the only emotional context in which I want or need sex.

    Thanks DP.

  101. CBrachyrhynchos: If two people fully and consensually agree to be celibate,

    A sexual person doesn’t “fully and consensually agree to be celibate” anymore than a homosexual person can fully and consensually agree to no longer be homosexual.

    CBrachyrhynchos: agree to non-monogamy, agree to alternative ways of having sex to get around medical and/or emotional limits, agree to split up over differences, agree to intercourse even though one partner might be anorgasmic, agree to a relationship where certain kinks are satisfied solo,

    And THAT makes much more sense, but this conversation was on the basis of MONOGAMOUS relationships, particularly marriages and on sexual intercourse (PIV) in general and not kinks specifically

    CBrachyrhynchos: why is it necessary to demonize the less-sexual partner as engaged in emotional blackmail? Why is it anyone else’s concern?

    No demonizing necessary except in the case where “compromise” means celibacy for a sexual being SOLELY because they are in a relationship with someone who at ONE point enjoyed or pretended to enjoy/be sexual and now suddenly are demanding for a sex life to cease to exist in a MONOGAMOUS relationship. That’s emotional blackmail. It isn’t any of my concern but anytime it becomes common knowledge I find fault with the person pushing celibacy because I wonder why this call for celibacy wasn’t made prior to exchanging vows? Why wait until someone is emotionally vested in you or you start a family to admit to not enjoying sex and wanting to do away with it completely or for the most part?

  102. Errr…celibate means abstaining from sex not “not being sexual.” Anyone can be celibate, regardless of their sexual orientation.

  103. Kristen J.: Ridiculous. If my SO gave up sex altogether tomorrow and for all time, I wouldn’t drop him. If that’s a deal breaker for you, okay! I have some of those too that you probably wouldn’t think are a big deal in your relationships. But its ridiculous to assume sex is a dealbreaker for everyone.

    Not everyone, sex is a dealbreaker for people who highly value sex. If sex is highly valued in these terms you have no desire for a lifetime of celibacy, not when that isn’t your only option. Obviously sex isn’t important to you, you could take it or leave it for any reason because being with the one person you are with now means more to you than ever having sex however you DO have other dealbreakers that would prompt you to leave, sex just isn’t one of them. That’s ok. I am a sexual being who values sex. I am not the only sexual being who values sex and the “issue” of “sexual discrepency” when it comes to desire and interest in sex is obviously a big one because its often brought up, discussed and debated as a dealbreaker. The scenario wa sin response with one partner valueing and having a desire and interest in sex and the other doing away with it completely or almost completely and expecting their partner to be perfectly ok with that dynamic.

  104. Kristen J.: Errr…celibate means abstaining from sex not “not being sexual.” Anyone can be celibate, regardless of their sexual orientation.

    How does one be sexual while abstaining from sex? How does one NOT be sexual while engaging in sexual ativity?

  105. Sexuality is the presence or absense of sexual desire. Sex is an act you can choose to participate in regardless of whether you have sexual desire.

  106. Azalea: A sexual person doesn’t “fully and consensually agree to be celibate” anymore than a homosexual person can fully and consensually agree to no longer be homosexual.

    You do know there’s a difference between sexual behavior (celibacy) and sexual orientation (hetero/homosexual)? Heck, Suzie Bright even did it for about a year.

    And THAT makes much more sense, but this conversation was on the basis of MONOGAMOUS relationships, particularly marriages and on sexual intercourse (PIV)in general and not kinks specifically

    Why are you assuming that marriages are necessarily monogamous, centered on PIV, and not remotely kinky? If we never have PIV sex again, we’re comfortable with that.

    No demonizing necessary except in the case where “compromise” means celibacy for a sexual being SOLELY because they are in a relationship with someone who at ONE point enjoyed or pretended to enjoy/be sexual and now suddenly are demanding for a sex life to cease to exist in a MONOGAMOUS relationship. That’s emotional blackmail.

    Isn’t that for the more-sexual partner to decide? I’ve been sexually assaulted. I’ve been sexually coerced. I’ve been emotionally blackmailed and coerced. I’m pushing 40 and I’m perfectly competent to figure out when I’m being abused and when I’m not. And my partner is the only person I trust not to do any of that.

    It isn’t any of my concern but anytime it becomes common knowledge I find fault with the person pushing celibacy because I wonder why this call for celibacy wasn’t made prior to exchanging vows?

    People change sexually over time and you make your decisions about whether those changes are deal-breakers or not. It’s not for you to decide what other people consider unacceptable in a relationship.

    Why wait until someone is emotionally vested in you or you start a family to admit to not enjoying sex and wanting to do away with it completely or for the most part?

    Sometimes, people don’t figure these things out until they’re neck deep in a relationship. I know people who were in denial about their sexual orientation until they had adult children.

    And sometimes, people change. Sometimes shit happens and you make a decision about whether to roll with it because everything else is good, or split up because it’s not good enough. It’s not like either of us foresaw our sex drives switching from “yeah” to “huh” (unfortunately not at the same time) it the first year or even in the third.

    Is it difficult at times? Hell yeah. You know what makes it more difficult? Accusing either of us of emotional blackmail as we figure out how to live with this.

  107. Also, I value sex. That isn’t a correct interpretation of my position. Sex is highly important to me, it just isn’t the most important thing. I think it is possible to be a highly sexual person who is celibate.

  108. If anything were to happen to my current partner, I’d probably be celibate for a while, because I just can’t see myself working my way through the complex process of building trust again.

    I’d certainly be sexual, because Ian McKellen’s voice makes my pants all tingly.

  109. CBranch & Kristen–so much <3 for what you're saying.

    I am also baffled by why marriage is being interpreted to necessitate monogamy.

    Re: unwanted sex being rape–I think there's a lot of slippage in what gets called "unwanted." There are times when sex is "hell yes" and times when it's "sure" and times when it's "yeah, okay, I don't mind giving up this book"–and then there are times when it's going to feel intrusive and/or physically painful.

    I've been advised to have sex despite physical pain. My female relatives informed me it was essentially my duty, and I wish I had not learned that it meant their sex lives involved those acts. They thought I should endure physically painful sex and say nothing.

    I did that with my first serious partner from time to time. And even though it generally didn't cross the line into rape, having someone cause you unwanted pain while you're intimate, having someone who supposedly loves you not notice that you're holding your breath… it's a weird alienation. Call it Pavlovian or whatever. But it's the opposite of that warm bonding that happens after regular sex. It's the introduction of a fundamental separation into intimacy.

    And I really don't want to do that ever again.

    If other women do want to do that, well, yeah, I do feel like I can criticize a system that makes it seem like it is one partner's–usually a female partner's–responsibility to engage in sex they find painful. But people have to navigate the world we have, and if hiding painful sex is part of what they feel they have to do–well, I'm not living their lives, right?

    Anyway, unwanted sex is not a monolithic thing. And I do think the "lie back and think of England" metaphor puts pressure on women to consent to sex they don't want, and to see that as a normal part of relationships. That bites. It bites for the women having sex they don't want and it bites for the men who presumably aren't getting all the sex they want either. And it bites for people in any gender combination that doesn't fit the patriarchal narrative.

    The solution, IMO, is to erode the defaults, to bring this stuff up for discussion and negotiation, for partners to be aware of each other's feelings and desires. & sometimes, indeed, the end result of that negotiation may be shouting "See ya!" from the rooftops.

    But the equation of refusing unwanted sex–which can include physically or psychological painful sex–with abuse? …That's really rough. It gets right back to the patriarchal narrative that women don't really own their bodies. So much with the not good.

  110. Maureen O’Danu:
    zombies are irrefutably great.Go ahead.Prove me wrong.Game of Thrones opened with zombies (or maybe they were vampires — it’sa little unclear).And fer crying out loud different strokes, folks.Life is too short to turn on each other over scraps.Zombies, zombies, zombies.Or alternatively, Johnny Depp, my once and future crush.

    Maureen

    I agree, this is the best pilot I have seen in a long time. I wish they had made it longer though

  112. @kristen j – yep, as sexual as I am I could not give up on my partner. Sex is amazing, and fun, and one of the only things (apart from swimming) I can do ‘normally’ these days, but she’s more important than what she can give me in bed. Would I miss it? Terribly. But her+no sex is better than sex, but no her.

    @mandolin – I’m so sorry people tried to minimise your pain like that. Sexual pain is horrific. Equating sex with pain is damaging on so many levels. I even ended up damaging my partner, because I insisted on having sex despite pain, and ended up in an ambulance after blacking out. She was scared to even hug me for weeks, and the kicker was that I’d initiated sex to ‘prove’ I was ok, not ‘damaged’.

    The experience at the hospital was so traumatic, and reminded me very much that certain people of privilege just cannot accept that for many people ‘sex’ is not about PIV. I think that’s the problem with so much discussion of sexuality and sexual health too, here and elsewhere. ‘Sex’ is framed as a cis man penetrating a cis woman with his penis. That’s it. And sometimes even people who are progressive, and open minded and inclusive but identify with that kind of ‘sex’ map their experience onto the discussion, and erase the experiences of others with the privilege of their societally accepted heteronormative sex lives, by simply not being able to break out of that mindset. Anything but PIV is mere ‘foreplay’ to so many minds, and so the sex life of anyone who does not partake in PIV is reduced, even if unconsciously, to ‘not real sex’. So, trying to maybe discuss a lowering of desire, or painful sex, or any sexual issue by someone not part of that privileged, valued, PIV-having group either requires a level of explanation that goes past TMI, or people making assumptions that do not apply to you. Neither of these options feels productive if you’re trying to have a serious discussion about sex, desire, sexual issues like pain etc. Privilege can be hard to examine, I don’t doubt that, (and have experienced the shock and anger of confronting my own) but it’s necessary in space like this to examine how the inability of some people to acknowledge, and deconstruct their own privilege, leads to repeated clusterfucks and a sense that people who can tick any minority box should just scroll past the very issues that affect them the most, because it always ends badly when you point privilege out to people, and the lived experience of people who’vgone through whatever is being discussed, is pushed aside while others attempt to imagine how they think they would feel in that situation, or how they pity people in that situation, without considering the ramifications of doing that in a space where those people are are already present.

    Sometimes it feels like reddit, only without the little arrows. Although that was trialled here, if I’m not mistaken.

  113. Oh and great things:

    Lagomorphs
    Morphine
    Plants vs Zombies
    Anything with David Attenborough
    Swimming
    Baby animals
    Echo the elephant (may she RIP)
    the NHS
    The Rough Aunties
    Burnt sugar fudge
    Stottie Cakes
    Topdocumentaryfilms.com
    Self-acceptance
    Going to sleep with your head on someone else’s chest.

  114. Paraxeni: You make totally great points… and illuminate to me that I was defaulting to PIV sex as “sex.” I should know better, and I apologize.

  115. Paraxeni: You make totally great points… and illuminate to me that I was defaulting to PIV sex as “sex.” I should know better, and I apologize.

  116. I read the posts and comments. Took no offense to any of it. While opinions of strangers on the net are interesting to read, they have no impact on my life.

    Whether or not I’m asexual, less sexual, or having tons of great sex has no importance to any but me.

  117. “Yvonne :
    I read the initial post as saying:
    – the world is divided into a minority of asexual people and a majority of sexual people”

    (it seems a lot more likely that it’s actually a spectrum-
    no one is completely 100% sexual,and asexually described people are possibly somewhat sexual.the problem is seeing people AS binary-that is what is pathologising.it seems like desire is a spectrum,and waxing and waning.
    there IS no “abnormal”.
    why do we tend to see everything as simply black and white……?)

  118. @Mandolin – no problem, although that wasn’t aimed at you! I know that the societal pressure for someone with your type of vaginal pain issues, to have PIV sex no matter what must be horrible.

    I know a couple of women with vulvovaginal pain disorders who felt they were under so much pressure to do the ‘Tab A in Slot B’ thing, that they gave up on relationships altogether. All because society says “This is sex. Deal with it.”. I’ve been in the position of giving solace to young women who’ve become sexual with someone else, engaged in a bit of dry-humping or touching through clothes, and been terrified that they had orgasms from something ‘wrong’. I’ve seen young women ask “My boyfriend wants to do things to me that I think are not right and a bit weird, but I like it. Is that really bad?” So we get to the ‘everyone likes different things, orgasms and feeling pleasure during consensual sexual activities are not bad’ advice, only to find that they mean he’s giving them oral, or sucking and nibbling on their breasts. They don’t see it represented in mainstream media, therefore it’s ‘wrong’. That really upsets me. More shame, more fear, more confusion – they damage people.

    Oh and as for great things, one of my ‘Great People’ died today. RIP Elisabeth Sladen, aka Sarah-Jane Smith, from Doctor Who/Sarah Jane Adventures. She was a genuinely lovely woman, and a fantastic role model for me as a little kid watching DW repeats with my dad. She was feisty, and strong and dignified on screen and in real life, and I’m sure I’m not alone in saying it’s a sad day for Who fans everywhere.

Comments are currently closed.