tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post6842720613232937243..comments2024-03-26T06:17:49.527-07:00Comments on Had Enough Therapy?: Sex as Collaborative PerformanceStuart Schneidermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12784043736879991769noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-7008723187978851212010-08-27T14:31:15.180-07:002010-08-27T14:31:15.180-07:00Thanks, Susan for your comments. Of course, agency...Thanks, Susan for your comments. Of course, agency implies selectivity. A woman who is too drunk to know what she is doing has clearly sacrificed her agency, and her free will. And a woman who hooks up with whoever asks her has also abandoned her discriminating judgment.<br /><br />The less well a woman knows the men, the less she has enough information to make a free choice.<br /><br />The more the person is a stranger the less the agency.Stuart Schneidermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12784043736879991769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-16776374838171119282010-08-27T12:52:21.423-07:002010-08-27T12:52:21.423-07:00I actually looked up the word agency to get its ex...I actually looked up the word agency to get its exact meaning. In this context, it is "the state of being in action or exerting power." Certainly women who choose to have casual sex with a stranger, are agents of their sexuality. They may be selling themselves short, or even putting themselves in danger as JF, did, but they are ostensibly doing some sort of cost/benefit analysis and opting in favor of the sexual exchange. I do find the word power quite interesting here, as feminists repeatedly claim that having casual sex is "empowering." It strikes me as a way of seeking validation - a short-term ego boost, really. Later, of course, women often "crash" with feelings of regret. Which leads them into a vicious cycle as they seek a new male source of sexual validation. <br />As for sex as charity, I'll share a true story from my own life that I once put in the comments of my own blog back in February:<br /><i>The absolute worst is the pity f*ck. I remember one good platonic friend, and he had a gf, but he showed up at my apartment one night to say how tortured he was, that he couldn't stop thinking about me. He suggested that if he and I had sex, he would know whether he really loved her or not. I wasn't into him at all, so I assured him that he loved her, he didn't need sex with me to discover that. He was adamant and passionate about it, and pleaded his case for two hours. Finally, I said what the hell and took this guy into my bed. When it was over he said, “Wow, I thought you'd be sexy and passionate. I can't believe you just laid there. I guess I do love her.”<br /><br />womp womp womp</i><br /><br />That was my one and only act of charitable sex.Susan Walshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01984275712518966508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-4260722415665694352010-08-27T07:15:32.916-07:002010-08-27T07:15:32.916-07:00Thank you Laura for sharing your own experience. I...Thank you Laura for sharing your own experience. It's good for young women to know that occasional dalliances do not necessarily define one's character.<br /><br />Unless, of course, one is like Jaclyn Friedman and announces it all in public and insists that it define her character.<br /><br />I am intrigued by what Clarence wrote about charity.<br /><br />As you can tell, I've been mulling it over for a couple of days now.<br /><br />Of course, we offer charity to people we do not know, to strangers, and sometimes we offer it anonymously.<br /><br />Yet, the money or services we offer as charity are excess; they are more than we need to maintain our own way of life. We do not offer the rent or sell the house and give it to charity.<br /><br />But there is yet another interesting angle here, and here is where I think that Clarence is on to something very important, and something that I had missed.<br /><br />What if women who hook up, who choose to service the sexual needs of strangers, are thinking of themselves as offering charity, as doing a favor to someone who is in need?<br /><br />Offering charity to someone in need is quite different, as a moral mindset, from being used for sex.<br /><br />Thanks, again, to Clarence.Stuart Schneidermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12784043736879991769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-30458078035288449842010-08-27T00:16:04.185-07:002010-08-27T00:16:04.185-07:00Stuart, please do not judge my grammar, bear in mi...Stuart, please do not judge my grammar, bear in mind that I am not of English mother tongue, have spent most of my life in German speaking Switzerland and am now retired in Spain. By the way, I very much enjoy your articles, but do not remember how I got to your website<br /><br />I would like to comment on Friedman’s hooking up theory. I think she is confusing two things: a (short) phase in life that one might go thru, may have to go thru and a way of life. Hooking up cannot be a way of life, for no one (except for gay men). She is fooling herself. Here my own experience: after having been left by my partner with whom I had lived together for a couple of years and who made me suffer a lot, I also went thru a hooking up period (after all this was the sexual revolution of the Sixties and Seventies) and nothing and nobody at the time could have stopped me. Hooking up was easy for me, I was a headhunter and met lots of interesting alpha-men (expensive dinners followed by nights at expensive hotels). After about no. 8 I realized the following: although I had enjoyed most of my encounters did not feel guilt nor shame, I had experienced hardly any climax and the few I had were flat – not to be compared with what I had shared with my ex-partner. I realized that good sex (true sex, indeed) is much more than a mere physical experience, it has a spiritual dimension which renders sex/climax so overwhelming, penetrating body and soul and leaving one so deeply satisfied and happy – this cannot, never ever, be found in casual encounters with strangers, certainly not in sexual “collaborative performances”. Friedman and her like very probably have never experienced the kind of sex I mean. They simply do not know what they are talking about. <br /><br />My hooking up phase was followed by a long, very long time during which I had no sex. I met my husband two years later, we were married within a month, raised three children, and have been married for 35 years by now. Although married to the same man for so long, I feel I am at least in my fifth marriage with him: we mature, we develop, we change – and so does the marriage - life with the same person is certainly more of an adventure than with changing partners. <br /><br />To end my story, something strange: A few weeks after I stopped having casual encounters, a lady whom I had often seen (but never talked to) at the restaurant where I used to lunch, came up to me saying that she was glad seeing me back to my normal self. She said to have watched with horror how my aura (obviously she could read auras) had changed over the preceding months, from harmonious to torn and to being in tatters. “You young girls just do not know what you are doing to yourselves”, she said sadly. Obviously my aura had told her what I had been up to. When I challenged her about the auras of (sleeping around) men, her answer was that this was just not the same and that she did not know why this was so. One of the most impressive casual encounters I had in my life with a stranger.<br /><br />LauraLauranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-34532824604608137142010-08-27T00:15:34.068-07:002010-08-27T00:15:34.068-07:00Stuart, please do not judge my grammar, bear in mi...Stuart, please do not judge my grammar, bear in mind that I am not of English mother tongue, have spent most of my life in German speaking Switzerland and am now retired in Spain. By the way, I very much enjoy your articles, but do not remember how I got to your website<br /><br />I would like to comment on Friedman’s hooking up theory. I think she is confusing two things: a (short) phase in life that one might go thru, may have to go thru and a way of life. Hooking up cannot be a way of life, for no one (except for gay men). She is fooling herself. Here my own experience: after having been left by my partner with whom I had lived together for a couple of years and who made me suffer a lot, I also went thru a hooking up period (after all this was the sexual revolution of the Sixties and Seventies) and nothing and nobody at the time could have stopped me. Hooking up was easy for me, I was a headhunter and met lots of interesting alpha-men (expensive dinners followed by nights at expensive hotels). After about no. 8 I realized the following: although I had enjoyed most of my encounters did not feel guilt nor shame, I had experienced hardly any climax and the few I had were flat – not to be compared with what I had shared with my ex-partner. I realized that good sex (true sex, indeed) is much more than a mere physical experience, it has a spiritual dimension which renders sex/climax so overwhelming, penetrating body and soul and leaving one so deeply satisfied and happy – this cannot, never ever, be found in casual encounters with strangers, certainly not in sexual “collaborative performances”. Friedman and her like very probably have never experienced the kind of sex I mean. They simply do not know what they are talking about. <br /><br />My hooking up phase was followed by a long, very long time during which I had no sex. I met my husband two years later, we were married within a month, raised three children, and have been married for 35 years by now. Although married to the same man for so long, I feel I am at least in my fifth marriage with him: we mature, we develop, we change – and so does the marriage - life with the same person is certainly more of an adventure than with changing partners. <br /><br />To end my story, something strange: A few weeks after I stopped having casual encounters, a lady whom I had often seen (but never talked to) at the restaurant where I used to lunch, came up to me saying that she was glad seeing me back to my normal self. She said to have watched with horror how my aura (obviously she could read auras) had changed over the preceding months, from harmonious to torn and to being in tatters. “You young girls just do not know what you are doing to yourselves”, she said sadly. Obviously my aura had told her what I had been up to. When I challenged her about the auras of (sleeping around) men, her answer was that this was just not the same and that she did not know why this was so. One of the most impressive casual encounters I had in my life with a stranger.<br /><br />LauraLauranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-22660336020935815122010-08-27T00:14:56.481-07:002010-08-27T00:14:56.481-07:00Stuart, please do not judge my grammar, bear in mi...Stuart, please do not judge my grammar, bear in mind that I am not of English mother tongue, have spent most of my life in German speaking Switzerland and am now retired in Spain. By the way, I very much enjoy your articles, but do not remember how I got to your website<br /><br />I would like to comment on Friedman’s hooking up theory. I think she is confusing two things: a (short) phase in life that one might go thru, may have to go thru and a way of life. Hooking up cannot be a way of life, for no one (except for gay men). She is fooling herself. Here my own experience: after having been left by my partner with whom I had lived together for a couple of years and who made me suffer a lot, I also went thru a hooking up period (after all this was the sexual revolution of the Sixties and Seventies) and nothing and nobody at the time could have stopped me. Hooking up was easy for me, I was a headhunter and met lots of interesting alpha-men (expensive dinners followed by nights at expensive hotels). After about no. 8 I realized the following: although I had enjoyed most of my encounters did not feel guilt nor shame, I had experienced hardly any climax and the few I had were flat – not to be compared with what I had shared with my ex-partner. I realized that good sex (true sex, indeed) is much more than a mere physical experience, it has a spiritual dimension which renders sex/climax so overwhelming, penetrating body and soul and leaving one so deeply satisfied and happy – this cannot, never ever, be found in casual encounters with strangers, certainly not in sexual “collaborative performances”. Friedman and her like very probably have never experienced the kind of sex I mean. They simply do not know what they are talking about. <br /><br />My hooking up phase was followed by a long, very long time during which I had no sex. I met my husband two years later, we were married within a month, raised three children, and have been married for 35 years by now. Although married to the same man for so long, I feel I am at least in my fifth marriage with him: we mature, we develop, we change – and so does the marriage - life with the same person is certainly more of an adventure than with changing partners. <br /><br />To end my story, something strange: A few weeks after I stopped having casual encounters, a lady whom I had often seen (but never talked to) at the restaurant where I used to lunch, came up to me saying that she was glad seeing me back to my normal self. She said to have watched with horror how my aura (obviously she could read auras) had changed over the preceding months, from harmonious to torn and to being in tatters. “You young girls just do not know what you are doing to yourselves”, she said sadly. Obviously my aura had told her what I had been up to. When I challenged her about the auras of (sleeping around) men, her answer was that this was just not the same and that she did not know why this was so. One of the most impressive casual encounters I had in my life with a stranger.<br /><br />LauraAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-91984393279345352262010-08-25T14:44:33.633-07:002010-08-25T14:44:33.633-07:00Hmm Stuart:
I was struck by this that you said:
...Hmm Stuart:<br /><br />I was struck by this that you said:<br /><br />"... is that if you are giving it away to people you barely know, then how does that involve agency or ownership. If you give it away for free, then the other person really owns it. When you take the time to get to know the other person and then engage sexually you are making a free decision about whom you are giving it to."<br /><br />It's an interesting argument, and one I admit I have never seen, but I think it is wrong - one can still choose to give anonymously to a stranger, look at many charities. :) That's not to say your and mine overall advice that its best to get to know someone first is wrong, but let's not confuse stupidity (or more charitably inexperience) with lack of agency. That way lies jailing men for consensual sex with young, unattached women.<br /><br />ClarenceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-8134472848009508622010-08-25T14:33:41.770-07:002010-08-25T14:33:41.770-07:00Thanks, Anonymous, for the link to the feministe w...Thanks, Anonymous, for the link to the feministe web site.<br /><br />The arguments are a bit too confused to take very seriously, but, perhaps in the interest of moving a bit away from the sex side, I was struck by some of Kay's grammar:<br /><br />For example, she writes: "A young woman are supposed to lose their virginity to someone she loves...."<br /><br />I do hope that she is better at sex than she is at grammar.<br /><br />I agree with Clarence that there are some women who are very involved in the hookup culture, perhaps because they do not want to commit or because they do not want the distraction of a boyfriend.<br /><br />And as he says, most girls who try this out do get hurt.<br /><br />As he suggests, most of the advice we offer about hooking up involves likelihoods and probabilities. There are emotional and physical risks in hooking up. They are generally higher than in sex with someone you know well.<br /><br />While it is possible, as the study cited by Feministe says, for a hookup to lead to a relationship, I think this is unlikely. And I believe that anyone who engages in sex with a stranger she has just met on the possibility that it will lead to a relationship is playing against very long odds.<br /><br />Long odds does not mean never. It is merely cautionary.<br /><br />When Kay mentioned on Feministe that the issue was sexual agency, I was somewhat taken aback. Surely, I, and Susan and even Hephzibah Anderson want women to own their sexuality, to engage it freely in relationships of their choosing.<br /><br />What concerns me, and perhaps this means that I am not very young, is that if you are giving it away to people you barely know, then how does that involve agency or ownership. If you give it away for free, then the other person really owns it. When you take the time to get to know the other person and then engage sexually you are making a free decision about whom you are giving it to.<br /><br />Again, some of these arguments are bizarre, indeed.Stuart Schneidermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12784043736879991769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-35926757013741227942010-08-25T14:17:19.928-07:002010-08-25T14:17:19.928-07:00I think that most of us on Susan's website wou...I think that most of us on Susan's website would admit that some women can indeed have lots of casual sex. Not a little, mind you, I'm talking LOTS. Hooking up at least once a month for several years, that sort of thing. Of course most such women aren't THEN looking for a LTR and if they later change their mind, they are often surprised how harshly they can be judged. Such women are like those who like mechanics or most sports -probably different than average in terms of genetics/brain chemistry. This is NOT to say they are "defective" mind you anymore than sexually submissive men or gay men are defective.<br /><br />But this is a minority (possibly as large as ten percent, almost certainly no higher) of women, most of whom tend to be young. The rest get hurt if a substantial number of their hookups fail to lead to anything better.<br /><br />And that is where teaching young females esp the value of some modesty comes in. At the minimum women interested in LTR should do two things:<br /><br />A. Don't give out sex unless at the least you are boyfriend/girlfriend and acknowledged as such by both partners.<br />B. Look for men outside their immediate sexual hot zone. Young women esp tend to love dominant confident men and such men have much power to demand things as you probably know.<br /><br />Anyway, good post if you remember that not all males and famales fit the same mold and there is some overlap between the sexes at the margins.<br /><br />ClarenceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-21733789179489382902010-08-25T12:14:09.809-07:002010-08-25T12:14:09.809-07:00Have you seen the latest comments in the sluts vs....Have you seen the latest comments in the sluts vs. the so-called "slut-shamers" battle? These chicks are BRUTAL:<br /><br />http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/08/24/another-defense-of-hooking-up-this-time-with-science/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com