Joan Sewell's "ex-gay" therapy regimen
I still haven't finished Joan Sewell's I'd Rather Eat Chocolate: Learning to Love My Low Libido, so I'm still not ready to give it a proper thumbs up or down. But wow is there a lot of food for thought in it.
I mentioned earlier that the book is structured as a walk through various pop-psychology "get your grove back" strategies. And for various reasons none of them work for her.
I've made it very clear (for instance here) that I believe asexuality is an orientation every bit as legitimate as other, more recognized orientations such as, oh, say, gay, straight, lesbian, bisexual, and transsexual. That doesn't mean I think every "libido imbalance" is based in asexuality. (Quite the opposite! For instance without altering his libido at all Sewell's sex-happy partner might be AlwaysArousedGirl's cold fish. In other words an *awful lot* depends on who you're talking to.)
But Sewell? Say what you like if you've just read the reviews but I'm going to give her a big fat A for asexuality. Not 100%, no, but if there were a comparable Kinsey scale (call this one the Figleaf scale) if the range went from 1-5 she'd be way over towards 1.1, maybe 1.5.
Which makes her take on the various sexual coping strategies very interesting indeed. It reminds me a lot of things I've heard gay, lesbian, or bisexual people say about trying to pass. The biggest hoot (though I can't find the link this morning) was the testimony of one of the ex-gay movements nominal big successes. He said thanks to them he was now fully heterosexual... although he admitted that in order to have intercourse with his wife he "only had to fantasize" about men" in order to get through it.
Sewell's sort of like that. It's not that she's insincere, it's just that -- clearly -- she's not into it. Everything happens in her head, nothing really percolates south of her chin, and when your heart's not into it and you have to rely on your head, the least little stray thought will knock you right back out of it again.
I had a big epiphany about it last night when she was talking about spiritual/"making love" strategies. (Hoot of a quote from the chapter: if sex is "a beautiful expression of emotional regard ... why would the sexperts recommend ... doing it doggie style with his wife in a plaid skirt [to] revitalize their spiritual connection?") Anyway, towards the end of the chapter my mind wandered to the interview with that ex-gay "graduate" and I realized that -- if the shoe was on the other foot and popular pressure made me submit to an "ex-straight" program -- even if I approached it with all the earnest good intentions in the world I'd be just as cerebral, just as easily distracted, just as unconsciously skeptical, and no more enthusiastic. I just wouldn't be into it, any more than the "ex-gay" convert was, any more than Sewell is. Because none of the three of us were made that way. We could force ourselves, yes... maybe... but our sundry compasses would still tend to our respective true Norths.
Oh, one anomaly I'd like to clear up -- one that's caused a bit of turbulence for critics: Sewell admits she masturbates, and has orgasms quickly and easily when she does. The fantasies she discloses, though, are along the lines of sex with people she finds undesirable, when she doesn't want to -- a fairly common "reverse-english" trope in fantasy-vs-reality that seems pretty consistent with a general disinterest in sex with others. That's enough for me to give her a pass.
There's one area, though, where I think she's making a big mistake. One that's fairly common, I think, for people who are under pressure to have sex outside their orientation. She keeps asserting, over and over, that *all* women have low libidos, that there are no Sex-in-the-City enthusiasts, that women's sexuality is almost entirely a sham to keep their partners around.
That's obviously a problem for two reasons. First, because while it coincides almost perfectly with stereotypes about women in most parts of the world it also rather abruptly denies the experience of millions of women through out the ages who've revealed in letters, diaries, poems, and scratches on the walls of cloisters and convents -- no to mention more modern letters to Dear Abby, appearances on daytime television, and, of course, sex blogs. (In this regard it's an exact inversion of the equally biased, disbelieving, and false assertions made about the asexual -- that they're inhibited, that they're not in touch with their bodies or feelings, that they're depressed, or repressed, or unexpressed, that they're selfish or squeamish or damaged.)
The other, perhaps less obvious problem, though, is that her gender-centrism excludes the sizable-but-sexually-invisible fraction of men who share her sexual orientation. And to the extent she insists its an issue for women only she betrays those men, increasing the pressure on them, driving them further underground, taking what *could* be pioneering on her part for asexuals everywhere and instead making it harder for those men to come to terms with their orientation, to express their feelings to their no-doubt baffled, even infuriated sexual partners.
I'll repeat my newly-articulated theme for this blog: within the limits of adulthood and consensuality, people should have the sex that's right for them, not the sex they, or anyone else, thinks they *should* have.
So far, as I've said, I'm loving her book. It's generally thoughtful, certainly thought-provoking, and often pretty funny. But instead of planting a flag in the sand for asexuality I think she's perpetrating a dreadful variation of heteronormativity (call it sexnormativity) against both libidinous women and asexual men. And in so doing she's perpetuating a millennia-old standard that makes... pretty much everybody but the perfectly matched miserable.
Your definition of asexual is totally different than I have thought. I think reproduction without the opposite partner or a non-gendered (in mind)person. I hadn't thought it had anything to do with orientation or libido.
[Well, there's asexual reproduction -- all sorts from simple cellular meitosis to parthenogenisis. I'm thinking more along the lines of Wikipedia entry I just Googled up which, I'm pleased to see, covers much of the same ground as my post. According to them there might be three subcategories of asexuality, people who just plain aren't interested at all, those who have sexual feelings but nothing romantic, and those (like, I'd say, Sewell) who have romantic interest but no real sexual interest in others. Thanks, Five! --fl]
Yeah. She might think it makes her feel better to insist that all women really feel like her, but I, for one, know a lot of women that blow that out of the water. Me included. I've always felt like I'm more like a man in that respect, but I just realized now, it's me being like me, not me being like a man to love sex. Just like she is being like her, not like every other woman out there.
I've never heard of this book but now I am intrigued. Great review.
[" I just realized now, it's me being like me, not me being like a man to love sex." Yes! Yes! Exactly!!! I mean, if a man has a low libido does anyone say he's "just like a woman in that respect?" Hell no! It's just him being him. Just like it's her being her, and just like you being you. I believe it's called "variation" and I believe that's considered fairly common. Thanks, DFP! --fl]
I think there is a difference though between asexuality as an orientation, which by definition would be something you are born with and presumably therefore immutable, and low libido which can undoubtedly change over time. There may even be a medical reason if it's a sudden change.
And to muddy the water still further, there are some people who never feel aroused by themselves, and therefore never take the initiative, but who "blossom", for want of a better word at this time of the morning, in response to a partner. If you get two like that in a relationship they would appear asexual.
And yes figleaf, I am A_tms.
[I totally agree that -- regardless of one's "natural level," libido, like appetite, varies over time and that it's affected by all sorts of externalities. Stress, to name only one factor, being a huge one. I haven't discussed it much yet but I feel *very* strongly that by making blanket claims about men or women as a class Sewell does a severe disservice to the women *and men* for whom sex is a matter of relationship or status survival. And survival sex is... just miserable, living hell. And that's *especially* ironic since it's clear Sewell, and other asexuals like her, was up to her neck in it with her partner. Thanks, A. --fl]
I guess I would agree with A on some points. Though I can see what you are saying figgie. (can I call you figgie? giggle.) Anyway, I think you are saying, it's not fair of one partner to try to change another partner from who they are. People are different, and it's not such a stretch to realize that they have different intensities sexually as well. On the other hand, I think some people could have medical or emotional conditions that hold them back from truly enjoying sex. For the sake of a marriage, I believe those people need to work through their issues and make an effort to enjoy sex. I see too many partners withering away in pain from being shut out by their low libido partner - male and female. And I have heard stories from formerly LL spouses that discovered they weren't really LL after all.
[I'm still working this out but I think it's important to approach the differences in sex drives without claims that one side or the other is more "right" or "wrong" or "natural" or "unnatural." It's *especially* important because I can make a *very* strong case that circumstances can magnify even pretty minor differences into high-stress, nobody-happy sex lives. (A neutral example: imagine two roommates with just slightly different standards of when to wash the dishes. Whoever has the higher standard is always going to start washing first... which, if they're both not careful, will make the other a thorough slob -- even if he or she would normally start washing just a few plates later. Now apply that to sex and add all the collateral social, emotional, and refractory-period issues... and step back.) Thanks, DFP. --fl]
This really got me fired up. I linked to you...
[Thanks, DFP. It's obviously got me pretty fired up too (and not at all negatively.) I appreciate the link. --fl]
All women have low libidos, huh? Ha! She should be a fly on the wall at my house on a lazy weekend. And that's just masturbation! :)
[Oh yeah! Multiply you by tens of millions of other women. Add tens or hundreds of millions more who aren't comfortable with their partners but who nevertheless masturbate actively. Add in millions of men who feel as Sewell does. I think she has her basic statistics right. I'm just very concerned with her analysis. Thanks, Watergirl. --fl]
I just finished reading Sewell's book. I found it very funny and I really identified with parts of it. I'm a married woman with a young child. I once had a strong libido, but over the years with the same partner and now the kidlet to take care of--the sex drive has gone south. I sort of feel that most of the women out there who say they have really high sex drives are 1) young 2) in newish relationships or single and 3) childless. But hey. I'm probably rationalizing.
Anyway, I did identify with Sewell a lot at the beginning of the book, but as I read on I really started to feel that this woman NEVER was interested in sex. And I disagree that most women were NEVER interested in sex. Most of the women I know have just lost interest because of monogamy and being so damned tired all the time.
But the book did really make me think about why we look at low libido as a "dysfunction." Society definitely sees it from the male position and women have internalized that message and believe it themselves. Just because it can be a problem does not mean it's dysfunctional-which gave me some food for thought.
[Yeah, you really got the book, Juniper. Or at least what I got from it. In her book Sewell's pretty clear that she really never has or does want sex, and I agree most of us aren't that kind of asexual. But her position, plus her natural curiosity, plus her natural concern, gives her an excellent outsider's perspective for what most of us experience maybe too up-close to see. And yeah, it's natural for someone who feels, well, perfectly natural not wanting sex to question the whole "dysfunction" mentality we've got. And to call us out on it. Now to be fair I think a lot of people really do have an interest in regaining something they remember feeling, and I think that's what drives a lot of sexual self-help seekers (and providers.) My experience watching people with small children is the solution is a) time and b) not assuming anything is permanent, and therefore c) patience. Sure, that's too short for a single post, let alone a book, let alone a daily TV program. But that's all it takes... unless you buy into the message that there's something wrong that needs to be (or instantly can be) fixed. Thanks! (p.s. as for the rest? Check out Esther Perel's "Mating in Captivity" for a great next step after absorbing Sewell's book.) --fl]