In their regular “Wise Guys” sectionEm & Lo asked “Do guys ever turn down casual sex?”
I like the column, not least because even when the answers are conventional they’re often conventional in non-stereotypical ways. This week not so much.
It’s a trickier question than it sounds. One of the interesting consequences of a tradition that requires men to do all the initiating… and the obvious corollary that we only initiate when we’re interested… is that we rarely have to confront invitations when we’re not interested.
Don’t get me wrong, we’ve got enough expectations tied up in “scoring,” and we have enough institutional and biological padding that we don’t have to worry as much about consequences (like reputation hits and pregnancy) that we can get interested pretty quickly.
But still, when it happens and we’re clear-headed enough to assess the potential fallout, it would be nice to have some kind of vocabulary to fall back on besides, oh, say
Yes guys do, contrary to popular belief, turn down casual sex on occasion. The number one reason given, “That bitch was crazy!”
Because saying that? That’s more like covering up when you’re panicked and looking for excuses. My suggestion? How about manning up and saying “no thanks, I’m not in the mood.”
—-
Short of maybe Brad Pitt every single, actively heterosexual man on the planet knows exactly how nerve wracking is to ask someone out… and knows just how much it can sting to get the rude brush off. And so every hetero man out there probably ought to either a) show a little collegial courtesy… or at least “honor among thieves.” :-) Or, seriously, a little sympathy and a considerate yes or no when someone summons the nerve to ask us!
And not to put too fine a point on it, from a men’s perspective the more women begin asking men out the more sympathy we’ll get when we ask them out!
—-
One final point. One of the more corrosive aspects of the no-sex class paradigm is that men don’t just condition ourselves to passively believe that “good” girls can be sexualized but not independently sexual, we also condition ourselves to actively enforce perceived departures from our ideological expectations. Thus a woman who initiates is a recurring sexual fantasy, sure, but like sexual initiative-taking, sexual fantasy tends to happen when… we’re in the mood.
On the other hand, if a woman initiates in real life, especially at a time when circumstance or mood makes us disinclined, it isn’t received so much as sexy, interesting, or a fantasy come true or, especially, for an opportunity to do something fun with someone who, other than genital anatomy, is just like you. When that happens men aren’t given a lot of places to go except up (with superior pronouncements like “she’s a bitch”) or out (with escapist characterizations like “she’s crazy”) but never straight across (“I’m sorry, I’m already in a relationship” or “I don’t think that would be a good idea… can I call you a cab, I don’t think you should drive” or even “Not now but can I call you later.”)
I’m not even going to say there’s something wrong with one (fantasizing about forwardness) or the other (preferring reticence in reality) since in day-to-day life women seem to feel somewhat similarly. I will say, though, that men need to spend a little time reconciling the differences. That plus making room for everybody and not just men to initiate, proposition, or propose, and walking back the panicky name-calling reactions next time a woman seems more ready, willing, and able than we are.
Submitted by 2674 (not verified) on Thu, 2009-01-29 07:13.
I hate the single guy answer this time around. It makes it sound as if the only options for a woman approaching a guy are "really truly is just a booty call" or "is going to be a crazy stalker." I've never been a crazy stalker in my life, but I'm also not who you really want for your booty call (even before I was married) - couldn't a guy turn me down because he didn't want to be as serious as he saw I'd want to be, without making me out to be Alex in Fatal Attraction?
And, yeah, I think part of this is that guys just don't get asked for sex often enough to get what it's like to be approached when they're not interested. Sure, there's certain physical and social stakes that made me set that interest bar higher, but there really are times when a guy's not in a horny enough mood, and women who just really aren't attractive to him, even if they aren't crazy bitches. Men do in fact reject women all the time, but given the subtler way women are taught to make their advances, and the fact that women's advances are less likely to be interpreted as interest in casual sex, probably they aren't counting a lot of those rejections here.
Submitted by 2674 (not verified) on Fri, 2009-01-30 07:27.
I'm gonna go with the ideas that 1) it's an abreaction to possible female notch-cutting, 2) there really is no such thing as "no strings attached" when dealing with women and 3) most straight men can't conceive of themselves as objects of desire and blank out. For 1), there's no guarantee she doesn't do this all the time, so how special are you? How is this in any way about what you, specifically, as an individual can do for HER? No, you're just supposed to be a convenient outlet and be so grateful for "getting any" you'll put up with a certain level of dehumanizing objectification, and 20 other guys will run to take your place if you refuse. And in this society, YOUR sexuality is the one that's disposable, fungible, replaceable by another nameless, faceless man. 2) mammal designed for pair-bonding claims she's not gonna bond in this instance. Sure. and 3) Attractive men who get attention from women all the time DO in fact get practice in rejecting those advances, but men who are generally having trouble with women either won't say no or are likely to interpret a subtle advance as yet another invitation to jump through hoops for sex.
[For someone so into Pickup Artistry it's kind of interesting to hear such a vehement condemnation of either belt-notching or replaceability, Eurosabra. It's either ok for everybody to do it or not ok for anyone to. Unless, I guess, you think all mammals, let alone all primates, let alone humans are "designed" to bond for life or something like it. And not to put too fine a point on it, but the whole fucking point of this post was to say that *because* men are so unfamiliar with being sexually desired on the one hand but also supposed to be so desperate for sex that maybe, just maybe, "that bitch was crazy" isn't the best possible response on the fucking planet! I mean, not to sound impatient, man, but for all your genuine expressions of hurt and exclusion by the status quo... why on the Big Blue Marble do you argue so passionately to uphold it? --fl]
Submitted by 2674 (not verified) on Fri, 2009-01-30 10:58.
there really is no such thing as "no strings attached" when dealing with women
To be honest, I'd almost be willing to say that there's no such thing as "no strings attached" in heterosexual sex. Almost because, well, it might both be the case that one of you is sterile and that both of you are low on the pair bonding drive. (Or, I suppose, that you really know for certain both that she'd get an abortion in the event of pregnancy and that you're both low on the pair bonding drive - but wouldn't knowing all that stuff for sure mean knowing her pretty well?) But it's really not the way to bet, and sex certainly doesn't default to "no strings attached," however much some people may want it to. It seems to me that "don't fall in love" is enough of a string, in itself, that you'd have to exercise great care to find that person who won't fall in love with you - and isn't part of the point of "no strings" wanting sex where you don't have to be careful and choosy about your partner? So, for the most part, I think "no strings" is a snare and a delusion (even though I know there are people in the sex blogosphere who'd beg to differ).
there's no guarantee she doesn't do this all the time, so how special are you?
Which is, actually, one of the problems of getting advances from men, as a woman. A whole lot of the advances one gets are impersonal enough to leave that "how special are you?" impression.
are likely to interpret a subtle advance as yet another invitation to jump through hoops for sex
And meanwhile, the woman, given that it's been impressed on her that she shouldn't be too aggressive and overt, is thinking that the guy would surely take her up on her advances if he were at all interested.
I do think, though, that at least some of the time the guy does notice the subtle advance, and ignores it not so much because he'd shy or bothered about jumping through hoops as because there's another woman in the vicinity that he finds more attractive, and he'd rather spend his time coming on to that woman. Which is a kind of rejection, but is unlikely to be something the guy sees as turning down a chance for casual sex.
[Hi, Lynn. As you know I'm a lot more categorical: there's no such thing as no strings attached because, obviously, the agreement not to attach strings itself imposes *enormous* mutual obligations on the parties. That doesn't rule out casual sex, it just rules out the possibility that heterosexuality is either "pair bonding" for life or lower-case-a anarchy with nothing in between. As for "how special are you," yeah, that's the most ridiculous thing thing I've ever heard -- the best, possible way to hate sex, and to get everyone else to hate it too, is to see it as a game where men compete against each other not for even for sex, period, but for sex "scored" with the least possibly interested, available, experienced or... um... maybe *willing* sex object. In that game a woman who's interested in sex for her own sake is considered "easy" and therefore has no value. In that wretched, alienated and alienating mindset there's no "sport" in sex with someone who actually *wants sex with you.* In that perverted mind frame men doesn't "deserve" sex with women who want sex *for themselves* because men must *earn* it, must be *worthy.* And not to sound rude to those who prefer such arrangements but piss on that: making one's own life miserable is one's own business but the line is crossed at the point one begins dragging everyone else along with you. None of this is directed at you, Lynn, of course since you're always a breath of fresh air. Nor is it even directed, really, at Eurosabra who no less a victim of the paradigm, nor any more of a perpetrator, than any of the rest of us. Thanks. --fl]
Submitted by 2674 (not verified) on Sat, 2009-01-31 08:06.
fl, I'm actually mainly observing one of those kinky poly people sci-fi covens at the mo, complete with every walking stereotype, which is mainly people who don't know they embody a stereotype, like the bi female who "intiates" younger "bi-curious" straight girls, and one of the things it impresses me with is that PUA is just another means of dealing with female sexual agency. I saw a dear, dear male friend turn down a woman who was both overly-interested in him and oversharing details of her sex life (Sci-Fi starf*ckers exist, and talk, it appears) with the standard girl-move of leaning out to break rapport.
I don't have an investment in the paradigm as much as feel that I'm in a culture where women are the choosers, men the chosen, and men experience a sacred horror at the helplessness of being chosen. Men who choose, initiate, and are accepted experience their sexual agency differently from men who are chosen, initiate, and are accepted, who experience it different from men who are chosen, do not initiate, and accept a woman's advances. Most common is the man who is chosen, does not notice it, does not initiate, the woman does not initiate, things stall, woman feels rejected. PUA bills itself as "get laid with the woman of YOUR CHOICE", but comes a cropper when attraction is inevitably an internal, individual process. Which is why it bills button-pushing as a panacea, these women, you see, aren't individuals, but they don't know that, all you have to do is activate the hive-mind evo-psych programming.
This dynamic of hoping to be chosen produces the old saw of newbie PUAs, "attraction is either easy or next-to-impossible."
[Too bad so many people have a hard time with the LGBT community. Being human, relationships aren't effortless for them either, and status, age, or beauty hierarchies are inevitable. But they're suspiciously free of the handful of laws we keep insisting are true. The biggest being that connections can't form when everybody is can desire and be desirable. So sure, it sort of stands to reason at a Si-Fi convention you're going to have people with prosthetic foreheads on their real heads putting moves on people who aren't interested. The real question, though, is what attitudes and assumptions are getting in the way of a) politely saying yes or no and b) having one's yes or no be politely acknowledged, c) composing overtures such that a response may be given without consideration of status gained or lost for either asker or answerer, d) respecting a yes or no without consideration of status gained or lost in the eyes of non-participants in the exchange. Thanks, Eurosabra. --fl]
Submitted by 2674 (not verified) on Mon, 2009-02-02 10:05.
I don't think it's status and non-participants being the real issue, but rather deficiencies in interpersonal communication, coupled with slut-shaming. The real problem I had was that the women who LIKED me never communicated that, so my experience was one of obligatory male agency and constant rejection, except on the rare occasions when I approached a woman who was attracted. Hence the "make her feel attraction no matter your looks, wealth, or age" appeal of PUA. You get better at asking, but I think you're still considering meta-cultural stuff when I'm considering 199 "No's" for every "Yes", and my successes (such as they are) bound up with tremendous negotiations of what, when, where such that one partner a year (while asking out one woman A DAY, as PUA recommends) is a very, very good year.
Submitted by 2674 (not verified) on Mon, 2009-02-02 22:35.
that the women who LIKED me never communicated that
Yeah, the message to women that, if he really liked you, he'd already be blatantly pursuing you, and therefore there's never any point in clearly letting him know you like him (and maybe doing so is even something to be ashamed of) definitely messes things up for both sexes.