Quick followup on other day’s post It’s Not “Disloyal” To Say There Are Some Things That Feel Better Than Sex, which was about how a lot of pleasures are underrated because we overemphasize (without necessarily overrating) our enjoyment of sex.

If having sex was considered passé but exercise was taboo imagine the moral fulminations about shin splints or tennis elbow.

If having sex was considered passé but exercise was taboo imagine the contortions and excuses we’d make for each other over ice packs or hot wraps.

If having sex was considered passé but exercise was taboo imagine imagine people hurrying in and out of unmarked buildings with plain paper bags full of unbelievably-poorly-made running shoes or phthalates- and even PCB-contaminated exercise balls. And imagine zoning ordinances and community outrage meant to prevent (mafia-run!) “gyms” or “workout clubs” from proliferating.

If having sex was considered passé but exercise was taboo imagine “frank” and “edgy” “experts” arguing that sure, it’s ok as long as it’s in the privacy of your own home. But even most “experts” agreed that people should get most of their exercise “naturally” over the course of the day as when climbing stairs or opening jars.

If having sex was considered passé but exercise was taboo imagine how shocked our partners might be to catch us covertly misusing a Hitachi Magic Wand on their, ew, muscles!

Or, if you like, imagine what the consequences would be if it were instead enjoying hot foods and beverages when it’s cold outside or snuggling your children, or visiting your parents when you were an adult, or . (For instance think how certain parties could effortlessly shift gears to claiming that women’s “delicate constitutions” just couldn’t possibly take the risk of child-transmitted sniffles… while also railing volubly about how, say, measles vaccinations could never provide “complete” safety from all illness and so distributing it would just mislead people into imagining they could just touch children with impunity.)

Sex wouldn’t feel any less nice. Nor would exercise or hot soup be any more so. What I was thinking about in the previous post is how much more we’d appreciate (however guilty we might feel about it) that which is ordinary but socially frowned upon.

Well… it’s from Psychology Today, which doesn’t have the winningest track record in my opinion, but here’s an interesting tidbit to ponder about the allegedly life-extending practice of Calorie Restriction. (A.k.a. CR, with some practitioners referring to themselves as CRonies.)

The article is from 2004, by Willow Lawson, and it’s an interview with a CR practitioner named Dean Pomerleau. One side consequence of CR, at least for most men, is reduced libido.

[Lawson] Many CR practitioners lose their sex drive. How is that healthy?

[Pomerleau] Obviously, it’s not for everyone. When you’re on the high testosterone side of the fence and your libido is going strong, it’s virtually impossible to see the appeal of the side of the fence that I’m on now. Some veteran CRonies, but not all, have observed this virtual disappearance of sexual desire. Like most men, I used to think about sex many, many times a day. It’s inconceivable to think about not having that as a large focus. Now, however, it’s very hard to see the appeal of going back to that testosterone-driven way of life. I don’t miss my libido one bit.

One of the biggest difficulties for my wife is that I’m not as attractive and she isn’t as attracted to me as she used to be. But psychologically and emotionally, she’s much more attracted to me now. I’m a much more considerate husband and father than I was prior to starting the diet.

Read the quotes in context here.

I’ve mentioned in the (distant) past that if it’s the case that women really have lower libidos than men then a libido-balancing solution that’s pretty much never discussed would be finding ways to reduce male libido. Not that that’s ever considered, in part, because…

• Society’s way to obsessed with finding ways to increase women’s “lower” libidos
• Even though if we did increase women’s “lower” libidos we’d just turn around and start worrying that they were all turning into sluts or something
• And besides, our construction of male gender is just too dependent on men having “too high” libidos for that to be a possibility
• And if we did decrease men’s “higher” libidos we’d just turn around and start worrying that they were all turning into wimps or weenies or fags or something

• And finally, of course, if we did such a thing we might have to confront the minor point that men’s and women’s libido differences aren’t so cut and dried. (coughTwo Rules of Desirecough)

But really, notice Pomerleau’s take on the side effect: “Now, however, it’s very hard to see the appeal of going back to that testosterone-driven way of life. I don’t miss my libido one bit.” There’s not a lot of personal tragedy there. Unlike having a damaged sex drive (where you want to have sex but can’t) when you don’t have a sex drive you mostly tend to wonder what the fuss is, was, or (have you ever watched a kid during kissing scenes in movies?) will be all about.

But wait! Since at this point many of your mouse-pointers are stabbing for the leave-a-comment box let me point out that while may not be a personal issue can be an interpersonal nightmare. It takes two to tango, and if you’re not into it (however blissfully) your partner may decidedly not be — regardless of your particular combination of sexes.

(Via Daze Reader.)

—-

Last minute obligatory inappropriate/insensitive humor: Calorie restriction doesn’t actually extend your life, it just makes it seem longer. Warka-warka-wark.

Images via the very neat Neatorama.com

I heard on the radio about some mashup of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice and a zombie novel. It rang a bell and sure enough.

It seems to me that the problem with zombies, and what makes them such a great pop icon/metaphor, is that they want to eat your brains, sure, but it doesn’t make them feel any better when they do!

And they’re so distracted by their quest for something that doesn’t help they never stop to reflect on what they could be doing differently instead.

Going one step further, the humans being chased around by the zombies rarely reflect on what they could give the zombies instead. Ok, there’s some discussion of this in the original Omega Man, at least the book version, and I think maybe the Will Smith movie remake. But still.

Not sure why reading this made me think of that.

So yesterday during a brief lecture on what was meant by “sex-negative” culture, our professor presented a very cool statement about food:

Try to imagine the following world: Accurate information about food is freely available and exists for all ages in appropriate ways. Talking about what sorts of food you like and negotiating with a dinner partner is a simple and relaxed experience. Different preferences, whether personal or cultural, are important for the information they provide and are no more or less important than hair color or family history, unless people are trying to figure out what to eat together. Some people prefer to eat with the same person indefinitely, others prefer to eat in a group and still others eat with a variety of partners as the mood suits them and nobody is ever forced to eat anything or with anyone. Each person is an expert in their desires and needs around food and their choices are respected.

Now what was missing from the presentation was the source of that quote. Once I got home and started Googling around I’m pretty sure the source must have been The Language of Sex Positivity, by Charlie Glickman, from Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, Volume 3, July 6, 2000. It contains the preceding paragraph and adds a nice follow-up…

While there are many examples of how our world is different from this food-positive one (as anyone who becomes vegetarian in a family of meat eaters knows,) it isn’t too hard to imagine this place. Now go back through the last paragraph and substitute “sex” for “food” and “have sex” for “eat.” How much more difficult is this world to imagine? How much more work would it take to make this happen?

On the other hand, our professor’s version contained a modified version of the first that didn’t require us to imagine…

Try to imagine the following world: Accurate information about sex is freely available and exists for all ages in appropriate ways. Talking about what sorts of sex you like and negotiating with a sex partner is a simple and relaxed experience. Different preferences, whether personal or cultural, are important for the information they provide and are no more or less important than hair color or family history, unless people are trying to figure out what kind of sex to have together. Some people prefer to have sex with the same person indefinitely, others prefer to have sex in a group and still others have sex with a variety of partners as the mood suits them and nobody is ever forced to be sexual or have sex with anyone. Each person is an expert in their desires and needs around sex and their choices are respected.

Our professor suggested that for all of society’s bragging about this or tisk-tisking about that, the fact that the two versions of the paragraph have highly different implications suggests that we have a sex-negative society. And I would add that the simple fact that we’d consider making the comparison in the first place is evidence of the same thing.

I adore food/sex analogies — I think they’re each wonderful metaphors for the other.