Side A would have it that heterosexual, strictly penis-in-vagina intercourse is one of the best arguments in favor of non-casual monogamy: it’s possible for the average woman to have an orgasm from thrusting alone but it generally takes quite a bit of practice.
Side B would have it that sex isn’t even sex if it doesn’t end in penis-in-vagina thrusting.
Side Me would have it that gee, maybe that’s one more reason we hear more men than women waxing enthusiastic about casual sex.
—-
Side C would have it that heterosexual, strictly penis-in-vaginal intercourse is one of the best arguments in favor of non-casual monogamy: it’s extremely easy to become pregnant that way and under traditional circumstances casual sex plus pregnancy equals unsupported single mother.
Side D would have it that sex isn’t even sex if it doesn’t end in penis-in-vagina thrusting.
Side Me would have it that gee, maybe that’s one more reason we hear more men than women waxing enthusiastic about casual sex
—-
Of course some people think that women, as the “no-sex” class, just aren’t ever directly interested in sex…
Men pursuing casual sex do so for casual sex as an end in itself. Now some women may have casual sex in this way, but they are in a tiny minority. In fact, the idea of indiscriminate sex disgusts most women. To most women, “casual sex” is not casual at all, but part of evaluating a potential long term mate.
To be fair to Ivan Appleton, the author of the above snippet, acknowledges that long-term sexual interest is one of the ulterior motives…
Remember, she’s out to find a long-term mate, and part of what a long-term mate has is strong sexual attraction for her. When women complain about men who are “only after one thing”, the emphasis is on “only”.
... but it’s still presented as ulterior motive rather than present desire.
—-
Of course as long as Parts A, B, C, and D, above are combined with a social structure that is, in the words of Helen E. Fisher,
...a relic of our long agricultural past, when women were pawns in elaborate property exchanges at marriage…
Source: Anatomy of Love; 1992
then simply suggesting “lighten up a little, bbbbaby” probably isn’t going to cut it.
Submitted by 1590 (not verified) on Wed, 2007-09-05 23:33.
Truthfully, Rebecca, I have to say that my chauvinism (and there isn't a nicer word for it) comes from my perspective as a gay man, and traveling in certain sexual spaces, sex acts are largely transactional. Many men go into porn theaters for quick fixes and many of them are indifferent, for lack of a better term, as to how they get it; circumstances dictate that more often than not these transactions are with other men rather than women. I don't claim to know why specifically, but I make a number of presumptions based on empirical observations. It would seem that an overwhelming majority of women are not interested in entering these casual "transactional" spaces for any of a number of reasons, most having to do with public perception of presumed behaviors therein, it seems, while men, even with similar social concerns, apparently have fewer socially-imposed "superego" obstacles to overcome. Of course, there is the notion that this more brutal approach to casual sex, peculiar to this type of environment, is unappetizing to a large segment of the culture in general (for those same matters of public perception) since the era of Plato's Retreat (thinking of the most direct, if well-polished, heterosexual correllative) ended in the mid-1980s. One could perhaps say that there has been a sort of revival with the ascendancy of One Leg Up NYC and its analogues, but the sense of things is not quite the same (nor was it necessarily comparable even with Plato's) because the newer sexual spaces are more concerned with creating a safe space for women to explore their own sexuality without the unpleasantness of less pleasant or less lowest-common-denominator environments.
Of course, my commentary here applies to a very specific realm of sexual behavior, but I don't think it's particularly difficult to extrapolate many of the same philosophical views into the larger sexual culture.
Your mileage may vary, of course, and I didn't mean to offend. I am not unfamiliar with the concept of talking out of my ass, actually.
[Interesting perspective, Jerry. As a friend of mine has to keep reminding me, I'm still dreadfully heteronormative even when I'm trying not to be. My own interpretation of the different reactions of men and women boil down to acculturation than distaste -- in our "two-sphere" culture each gender whether straight or gay is ghettoized into it's limiting comforts. Men, particularly gay men, are largely denied any other connections and are expected to jam our multi-faceted shapes into the square holes random couplings without complaint. Women, no less complexly formed, are expected to jam themselves into no-less confining round holes. And each is expected to believe the hole *they're* stuffed into is a more natural fit. :-) %#$!&*(@%! Thanks! --fl]
Submitted by 1590 (not verified) on Thu, 2007-09-06 09:19.
I think per both this OP and the comments, you can't discount that one very large reason many women who sleep with men don't pursue casual sex as often has to do with simple safety: in terms of sexual abuse and rape, but also, as David mentioned, because women's risk per pregnancy is so much greater.
That said, one reason I loved, loved, loved one-night stands so much for so many years (and would still be having plenty of them if I wasn't monogamously partnered) -- nearly from the start of my sexual life in my teens, no less -- when I chose to have them with men is that it was often very easy for me to be very assertive with an absolute or near-stranger when it came to sex NOT being simply PIV or PIV at all.
In other words, I often found that because men I chose came to the sex as a sort of unexpected coup, and felt chosen (it was generally me initiating) it was incredibly easy for me to say and get *exactly* what I wanted. The lack of history and any sort of interpersonal baggage between myself and whomever that person was also helped in that arena: there was never any sort of "but we did X last night," and such.
[All cool insights, Heather. I get a little radical about the pregnancy-risk thing in the sense that in the sense that with radical culture reconfiguration pregnancy would be no more socially, economically, or personally disastrous for single women than for partnered ones -- not that there's *no risk* for women with partners, just that it shoudl be *no greater.* As for fear of assault, yeah, I went to bed last night, and woke up again this morning thinking about the social and gender consequences of 25% of all women disclosing they've in some way been sexually assaulted. Jefeezhus! And finally, yeah, that's been my experience of one-time relationships when I wasn't initiating it (and sometimes when I was.) There's another area it would be great to develop a little more social expectation around. Thanks! --fl]
Submitted by 1590 (not verified) on Thu, 2007-09-06 11:11.
Oh my - I love, love, love this picture! Reveals just enough.
As a woman who is in a "casual sex" relationship outside her marriage, I found this very interesting. Of course, the fact that my partner has had a vasectomy makes the whole pregnancy thing a non-issue, which helps immensely in making casual sex appealing for me. Also I specifically wanted someone who is married too, to try to avoid any intense emotional attachment. I'm not looking for a long-term mate (I have one of those already, so does he), we're both just looking to fill a gap (so to speak) in each of our marriages.
Interesting discussion.
[Thanks, Bunny! Yeah, I didn't even get into the first obvious solution to the pregnancy issue: reliable contraception for men that complements what's available for women. I had my first vasectomy when I was 21, but that's unworkable overkill for most men. :-) --fl]
Submitted by 1590 (not verified) on Tue, 2007-09-04 21:37.
well, as a female that's "interested" in non-commitment type sex (call it casual or what you will), i dunno if what i have to say is all that relevant, but:
maybe this majority of women that aren't into casual sex aren't into it simply because they prefer the mind-fuck that inevitably comes along with really getting to know someone. or the confidence/intimacy to communicate to the other person what turns them on. or maybe they're just lying about not liking/engaging in casual sex because it's not as societally-acceptable for women to admit to it as it is for men.
[Actually I think *all* the alternatives you cite sound valid, kermit, which is why I'm so confident the "no-sex" class mythology is so wrong. I mean, as the source I quoted makes clear, it's a *hugely pervasive* myth *among men,* but it doesn't make any sense to you at all. I think if I keep pounding on the theme we, meaning men, will come to our senses. Bottom line, though, is that *I no longer believe it,* and now I see how miserable it makes not just their partners but those of us who, still believing in it, continue to perpetuate it. Thanks kermit! --fl]
Submitted by 1590 (not verified) on Wed, 2007-09-05 06:59.
Jerry--
Men "get" sex from women who "give" it?
The implication of that statement is that women *aren't* getting sex in the same way men are, so they probably have another motive. In other words, the women-as-the-no-sex-class paradigm.
Is that how you meant to frame it?
[I've noticed that it's incredibly easy to slip back into the no-sex class mentality *even though I'm the one who created the distinction!* Which is, of course, the problem with dominant paradigms -- they're not just particular words or ideas, not just the frame, but the the underlying *framework!* In other words it's not so much that Jerry *meant* to frame it as that, at least at first, the paradigm *frames itself!* Anyway, yeah, I expect other guys aren't going to find it any easier than I've been, but the rewards of clawing out of that stupid notion make the work worth it. Thanks, Rebecca! --fl]
Submitted by 1590 (not verified) on Tue, 2007-09-04 22:13.
Is this true: "Men pursuing casual sex do so for casual sex as an end in itself."?
I mean, I am sure it is sometimes true of some men, just as it is sometimes true of some women. But it seems in my experience that it is also often false of many men, just as it is often false of many women.
Strikes me that the whole article is out to lunch.
[Bloody right it's not automatically all one or all the other. The whole idea of gender essentialism or two spheres of gender or whatever really puts a crimp in *everybody's* style. Worse, it puts a crimp in everybody's ability to *see what is!* (And I don't mean "what is" in a mystical, transcendental way, I mean in the "play the black three on the red two" way of seeing that happens to us when someone else watches us play solitaire! It's all there, plain as day. We're looking right at it. We just don't *see* it.) Thanks, E. --fl]
Submitted by 1590 (not verified) on Wed, 2007-09-05 00:51.
So you agree with the philosophy that men tend to be more recreational about sex than women are, given the prevalent "ulterior motive?" I certainly find that to be the case, given that in my experience there are far more men in bookstores and bathhouses looking to get sex than there are women in those same venues willing to give it without a lot of rules attached (swingers, prostitution, et. al.).
On the flipside, there are too many men (or is that too few women?) who reach points of desperation for even the most casual encounters. There's a reason that so many swingers clubs have "no single men" rules, I've discovered over the years. Men can get quite pushy over the faintest possibility of no-strings sex (though not always to the point of availing themselves of just any available outlet).
[Actually I *don't* agree, although the "no-sex" class mentality is so pervasive I think it's probably hard to read it any other way. I'm not saying women never have sex for "ulterior" motives because *people* -- men and women -- sometimes do. But notice how easily that way of thinking makes it to translate "sometimes" into "always" for women... or "sometimes" into "never" for men. Thanks, Jerry. --fl]