Thanks for this piece. I wish people could understand that not every woman wants the same life; specifically the same sexual and reproductive life - and that it’s OK.
My issue with the "sexual revolution" is not birth control, or my belief that women are incapable of identifying their boundaries. My issue is that growing up the only message I ever received about sex is that unless it is nonconsensual, it is guaranteed to be fantastically fun, and is the major marker of social success. When I first had sex and noticed that it was actually not very fun and was both physically and emotionally hurtful, I assumed that I had just done something wrong - because who was I, in comparison to the many many people insisting casual sex is wonderful, freeing, empowering, and the mark of a life well lived? So I tried it again. And again. And again. Unfortunately, I didn't learn to trust myself over others and that I had been lied to by my culture until I had developed serious mental health issues from my various casual and experimental sexual encounters. I was innocent. I knew nothing, so I had to rely on what others told me, and what I saw in all media everywhere around me. So I just don't see the harm in suggesting to young girls that there may be some emotional and physical downsides to casual sex, and that it is not actually amazing all the time for everyone.
I'm not sure who exactly to blame - actually I think multiple groups have their own reasons for promoting this message (ex. Hollywood does it for money). I suppose my parents fell short in never giving me any guidance about sex. I hung out mostly with a friend group of gay guys, who were awesome but very into promiscuous sex. I saw sex portrayed everywhere in movies, TV, music videos and ads as something incredibly fun that can be had with no strings attached and no downsides (as long as it's consensual). I heard feminists talking about the liberation and empowerment that comes with casual sex. And I noticed that as soon as I started having casual sex, my social status amongst friends and even strangers rose - although I was not enjoying the sex. The first place I ever read the idea that sex is not all great all the time, was in something by Andrea Dworkin, but it took me a long time to find her and I had managed to become disenchanted on my own by that time.
Hi, "meaningless recreation" commenter, here :-). I did choose my words poorly and apologize if you felt I was judging - it truly wasn't my intent.
To clarify, I think you could put sexual experiences along a continuum from "this is a sacred act performed only within marriage for the purpose of conceiving a child" to "Tinder hookup with someone I don't care if I ever see again after tonight". Personally, and this is just me, I can't have sex without a strong emotional element to it. I'm constitutionally incapable of not getting ridiculously emotionally attached to someone I have sex with, and I'm just not interested in sex without a relationship aspect to it (although I'm far from the "only for conceiving a child" end of the continuum!) But some people are, and that's ok. I do think that females who prefer sex without emotional entanglements are outliers, but that doesn't make it bad. Hey, recreation is fun! It's just less common for women to treat sex that way. From your description it sounds like you also prefer some kind of emotional aspect, you're just at a different point on the continuum than I am as far as the level of ongoing relationship you prefer, and I admire your adventurousness.
I don't think most people would define me as a traditionalist. I consider myself a feminist. My career is important to me and in fact my husband is the stay at home parent while I work (I'm a software engineer, which I know you've mentioned you are as well). I used birth control for many years and certainly have no regrets about that. I didn't wait until marriage to have sex and had a relationship prior to my husband. I thank my lucky stars every single day that I live in a time where women have choices, and freedom, and careers. My grandmother was actually one of my biggest supporters in getting an education and being able to support myself well, because she didn't want to ever see her granddaughters trapped in a bad marriage like she was. I saw first hand what that imbalance of power looks like and it's awful. I would NEVER advocate for going back to the days when women's sexual lives were strictly controlled by others, or where there was only one "right" choice that was forced upon us all.
The part that I lament is that as a young woman I quickly realized that having sex was the price of admission to the dating pool. Sure, I could have held my boundaries, stuck to my religious upbringing, not taken the chance I'd be dumped the morning after. But the number of men who are willing to date women who don't have sex early in the relationship is vanishingly small and often consists of individuals with very backward ideas about women's freedom, which was something I obviously could never tolerate. I know women who stuck to their boundaries and ended up either alone, never married with no kids even though that was what they wanted, or married to a controlling asshole. The men who are willing to wait a while, and let the relationship develop, but yet treat women like actual people instead of regressive stereotypes, don't seem to exist, or at least there are so few of them that the competition is fierce.
Now that I have teenage daughters I see the situation is even worse for them. The price of admission to the dating pool now is more kink, less commitment than what I experienced. And if that's what you want, it's ok. But I think a lot of girls and women don't want that, and the choice they are being given is "Do all these things" or "Be alone". And I find that really sad, and I can understand why given that choice women sometimes participate in sex that probably isn't what they'd prefer.
I wonder if there's a way to separate out these things and I don't know the answer. Is it possible to have birth control, and freedom and opportunity and careers and choices for women, but still have enough men who exist who are willing to date women who set more boundaries, and who don't want to have sex until there's a strong relationship? Or is this necessarily going to push us all into a mode where women compete for men by being more sexually permissive, and even those who don't want to be know it's the price of admission to even being considered by men as a potential relationship partner? I know the traditionalists believe that expectations of sexual permissiveness are a direct result of birth control and freedom of choices for women, but I have to believe it's not.
"I would NEVER advocate for going back to the days when women's sexual lives were strictly controlled by others, or where there was only one "right" choice that was forced upon us all."
I'm glad to hear this, and it means you aren't exactly the audience toward which I rant. :)
Don't worry about the "meaningless recreation" comment. It is not that I feel judged, because I truly don't give a rat's ass what anyone thinks of me. It is that I found it inaccurate and part of a polarized discourse that I don't think is helping.
It's been my experience that men say they won't wait for sex, but then they absolutely will. They cry and complain and then they wait. That said, I came of age at a different time, but I still wonder if such men are really so nonexistent. How much effort are women putting into calling their bluff? My suspicion is that women's "race to the bottom" I spoke of here (https://shannonthrace.substack.com/p/the-girls-are-traumatized) is setting the standard. Certainly that means that women who want to wait are harmed by women who give in, but I don't see how joining the give-in women is helpful. It causes you to have rushed/unpleasant sex, and it perpetuates the atmosphere in which other women feel like they must do the same. Part of what I'm trying to accomplish with my writing is to say to women: stop allowing yourselves to be degraded. It is not 1950. We have options.
On that note, I don't see how having rushed/unpleasant sex is preferable to being alone. I don't see how a man who insists on rushed/unpleasant sex is all that better than the "controlling asshole" who will wait. If you're going to lose either way, why not assert your boundaries?
(Throughout here I mean the hypothetical "you," not you specifically).
That said, I've never liked men enough to play those games, and I have to concede my not-straightness might make this easier for me than others. But damn, I do not see the appeal of scoring a man who doesn't care if you dislike the sex he's thrusting on you.
As for the situation faced by your daughter, which I know is truly awful, and the question of what the answer is: perhaps I'm idealistic, but to me the answer is honesty. Honesty with yourself and honesty with the other person. i.e.:
"No, I don't want to do that. That sounds painful. It would be painful if I did it to you, wouldn't it? If you're more interested in seeing me in pain than missing a thrill, that makes me sad. I'm a human being. If you can't see that, you're not the one for me. Also, you're objectively an asshole and a sociopath. What made you that way? Go home and examine yourself."
If you can't have that conversation, because it's explicit and scary, then you're not ready for sex anyway.
As a 51 year old woman who’s been married for years, I completely agree that being alone is not the worst thing in the world. As a 17 year old, awkward, painfully insecure ball of hormones and emotions who was convinced that because I wasn’t one of the ten hot girls in the class that every guy had a crush on that I was unloveable and worthless and no one would ever be interested in me, I probably did not have the strength of character to wait for what I wanted, or even to believe it was possible. I felt that there were two paths available to me - be the religious girl I was brought up to be, and date religious guys who were boring and unadventurous and would expect me to fill a very traditional role and be subservient and dependent, or join the mainstream culture where everyone was having sex and it was expected, and the guys were fun and exciting and I would be expected to have a career and be independent. And the traditional role was just a deal breaker for me. I couldn’t be that person even if I tried. (Seventeen year old me may have lacked the ability to see nuance…)
I think your race to the bottom article was right, and I think that’s what I was not-so-eloquently trying to express. It takes far more confidence than I had as a teen, and than one of my daughters has (the other one takes after her dad, thank goodness!) to believe in yourself enough to go your own way and trust that someone out there will love you for that, and if not, you’re better off anyhow.
You are the answer. A reasonable liberal person holding non-extreme views on sex, who has female children she can guide onto the path of confidence and self-worth.
Thanks for this piece. I wish people could understand that not every woman wants the same life; specifically the same sexual and reproductive life - and that it’s OK.
Well said.
Amen. Very well said overall.
My issue with the "sexual revolution" is not birth control, or my belief that women are incapable of identifying their boundaries. My issue is that growing up the only message I ever received about sex is that unless it is nonconsensual, it is guaranteed to be fantastically fun, and is the major marker of social success. When I first had sex and noticed that it was actually not very fun and was both physically and emotionally hurtful, I assumed that I had just done something wrong - because who was I, in comparison to the many many people insisting casual sex is wonderful, freeing, empowering, and the mark of a life well lived? So I tried it again. And again. And again. Unfortunately, I didn't learn to trust myself over others and that I had been lied to by my culture until I had developed serious mental health issues from my various casual and experimental sexual encounters. I was innocent. I knew nothing, so I had to rely on what others told me, and what I saw in all media everywhere around me. So I just don't see the harm in suggesting to young girls that there may be some emotional and physical downsides to casual sex, and that it is not actually amazing all the time for everyone.
Oh, I don't see any harm in saying that either; it should be said.
Why do you think the opposite message is the only one you heard? Who or what is causing that phenomenon?
I'm not sure who exactly to blame - actually I think multiple groups have their own reasons for promoting this message (ex. Hollywood does it for money). I suppose my parents fell short in never giving me any guidance about sex. I hung out mostly with a friend group of gay guys, who were awesome but very into promiscuous sex. I saw sex portrayed everywhere in movies, TV, music videos and ads as something incredibly fun that can be had with no strings attached and no downsides (as long as it's consensual). I heard feminists talking about the liberation and empowerment that comes with casual sex. And I noticed that as soon as I started having casual sex, my social status amongst friends and even strangers rose - although I was not enjoying the sex. The first place I ever read the idea that sex is not all great all the time, was in something by Andrea Dworkin, but it took me a long time to find her and I had managed to become disenchanted on my own by that time.
Hi, "meaningless recreation" commenter, here :-). I did choose my words poorly and apologize if you felt I was judging - it truly wasn't my intent.
To clarify, I think you could put sexual experiences along a continuum from "this is a sacred act performed only within marriage for the purpose of conceiving a child" to "Tinder hookup with someone I don't care if I ever see again after tonight". Personally, and this is just me, I can't have sex without a strong emotional element to it. I'm constitutionally incapable of not getting ridiculously emotionally attached to someone I have sex with, and I'm just not interested in sex without a relationship aspect to it (although I'm far from the "only for conceiving a child" end of the continuum!) But some people are, and that's ok. I do think that females who prefer sex without emotional entanglements are outliers, but that doesn't make it bad. Hey, recreation is fun! It's just less common for women to treat sex that way. From your description it sounds like you also prefer some kind of emotional aspect, you're just at a different point on the continuum than I am as far as the level of ongoing relationship you prefer, and I admire your adventurousness.
I don't think most people would define me as a traditionalist. I consider myself a feminist. My career is important to me and in fact my husband is the stay at home parent while I work (I'm a software engineer, which I know you've mentioned you are as well). I used birth control for many years and certainly have no regrets about that. I didn't wait until marriage to have sex and had a relationship prior to my husband. I thank my lucky stars every single day that I live in a time where women have choices, and freedom, and careers. My grandmother was actually one of my biggest supporters in getting an education and being able to support myself well, because she didn't want to ever see her granddaughters trapped in a bad marriage like she was. I saw first hand what that imbalance of power looks like and it's awful. I would NEVER advocate for going back to the days when women's sexual lives were strictly controlled by others, or where there was only one "right" choice that was forced upon us all.
The part that I lament is that as a young woman I quickly realized that having sex was the price of admission to the dating pool. Sure, I could have held my boundaries, stuck to my religious upbringing, not taken the chance I'd be dumped the morning after. But the number of men who are willing to date women who don't have sex early in the relationship is vanishingly small and often consists of individuals with very backward ideas about women's freedom, which was something I obviously could never tolerate. I know women who stuck to their boundaries and ended up either alone, never married with no kids even though that was what they wanted, or married to a controlling asshole. The men who are willing to wait a while, and let the relationship develop, but yet treat women like actual people instead of regressive stereotypes, don't seem to exist, or at least there are so few of them that the competition is fierce.
Now that I have teenage daughters I see the situation is even worse for them. The price of admission to the dating pool now is more kink, less commitment than what I experienced. And if that's what you want, it's ok. But I think a lot of girls and women don't want that, and the choice they are being given is "Do all these things" or "Be alone". And I find that really sad, and I can understand why given that choice women sometimes participate in sex that probably isn't what they'd prefer.
I wonder if there's a way to separate out these things and I don't know the answer. Is it possible to have birth control, and freedom and opportunity and careers and choices for women, but still have enough men who exist who are willing to date women who set more boundaries, and who don't want to have sex until there's a strong relationship? Or is this necessarily going to push us all into a mode where women compete for men by being more sexually permissive, and even those who don't want to be know it's the price of admission to even being considered by men as a potential relationship partner? I know the traditionalists believe that expectations of sexual permissiveness are a direct result of birth control and freedom of choices for women, but I have to believe it's not.
"I would NEVER advocate for going back to the days when women's sexual lives were strictly controlled by others, or where there was only one "right" choice that was forced upon us all."
I'm glad to hear this, and it means you aren't exactly the audience toward which I rant. :)
Don't worry about the "meaningless recreation" comment. It is not that I feel judged, because I truly don't give a rat's ass what anyone thinks of me. It is that I found it inaccurate and part of a polarized discourse that I don't think is helping.
It's been my experience that men say they won't wait for sex, but then they absolutely will. They cry and complain and then they wait. That said, I came of age at a different time, but I still wonder if such men are really so nonexistent. How much effort are women putting into calling their bluff? My suspicion is that women's "race to the bottom" I spoke of here (https://shannonthrace.substack.com/p/the-girls-are-traumatized) is setting the standard. Certainly that means that women who want to wait are harmed by women who give in, but I don't see how joining the give-in women is helpful. It causes you to have rushed/unpleasant sex, and it perpetuates the atmosphere in which other women feel like they must do the same. Part of what I'm trying to accomplish with my writing is to say to women: stop allowing yourselves to be degraded. It is not 1950. We have options.
On that note, I don't see how having rushed/unpleasant sex is preferable to being alone. I don't see how a man who insists on rushed/unpleasant sex is all that better than the "controlling asshole" who will wait. If you're going to lose either way, why not assert your boundaries?
(Throughout here I mean the hypothetical "you," not you specifically).
That said, I've never liked men enough to play those games, and I have to concede my not-straightness might make this easier for me than others. But damn, I do not see the appeal of scoring a man who doesn't care if you dislike the sex he's thrusting on you.
As for the situation faced by your daughter, which I know is truly awful, and the question of what the answer is: perhaps I'm idealistic, but to me the answer is honesty. Honesty with yourself and honesty with the other person. i.e.:
"No, I don't want to do that. That sounds painful. It would be painful if I did it to you, wouldn't it? If you're more interested in seeing me in pain than missing a thrill, that makes me sad. I'm a human being. If you can't see that, you're not the one for me. Also, you're objectively an asshole and a sociopath. What made you that way? Go home and examine yourself."
If you can't have that conversation, because it's explicit and scary, then you're not ready for sex anyway.
As a 51 year old woman who’s been married for years, I completely agree that being alone is not the worst thing in the world. As a 17 year old, awkward, painfully insecure ball of hormones and emotions who was convinced that because I wasn’t one of the ten hot girls in the class that every guy had a crush on that I was unloveable and worthless and no one would ever be interested in me, I probably did not have the strength of character to wait for what I wanted, or even to believe it was possible. I felt that there were two paths available to me - be the religious girl I was brought up to be, and date religious guys who were boring and unadventurous and would expect me to fill a very traditional role and be subservient and dependent, or join the mainstream culture where everyone was having sex and it was expected, and the guys were fun and exciting and I would be expected to have a career and be independent. And the traditional role was just a deal breaker for me. I couldn’t be that person even if I tried. (Seventeen year old me may have lacked the ability to see nuance…)
I think your race to the bottom article was right, and I think that’s what I was not-so-eloquently trying to express. It takes far more confidence than I had as a teen, and than one of my daughters has (the other one takes after her dad, thank goodness!) to believe in yourself enough to go your own way and trust that someone out there will love you for that, and if not, you’re better off anyhow.
You are the answer. A reasonable liberal person holding non-extreme views on sex, who has female children she can guide onto the path of confidence and self-worth.