The most absurd apology for authority and law is that they serve to diminish crime. Aside from the fact that the State is itself the greatest criminal, breaking every written and natural law, stealing in the form of taxes, killing in the form of war and capital punishment, it has come to an absolute standstill in coping with crime. It has failed utterly to destroy or even minimize the horrible scourge of its own creation. – Emma Goldman
My column of January 9th spawned a lively debate about male infidelity among several escorts and other interested parties; the central issues seemed to be whether a husband’s infidelity is different whether he sees a whore or has an affair, and whether it bothers us that we facilitate that infidelity. Those of you who read that thread probably noticed that, with the exception of the factual issues of comparative frequency, I largely stayed out of the discussion; that was a conscious choice on my part. When new reader Joyce made her very passionate post, I suspected it would inspire strong and interesting responses and so I decided to keep my big mouth shut for a change and let things develop without my influence. I was gratified to notice that, despite personal variations on the details, all the prostitutes who contributed were largely on the same page as I am, and I think that’s a good thing for reasons which will soon become clear.
“Harm reduction” is the modern name given to an ancient idea: Since neither the world nor human beings are perfect, there will always be evil and misfortune, and all we can hope for is to reduce the level of harm caused by those negative factors. In my column of November 26th I pointed out that the Catholic Church “recognized that human beings are imperfect and incapable of total adherence to any code of behavior. So rather than setting up impossible standards which many if not most people would often fail to meet (as we do today), the Church fathers recognized the need for safety valves which would allow people to blow off steam and thereby avoid great wrongs and mortal sins by tolerating lesser wrongs and venial sins.” This pragmatic view fell into disfavor after the Reformation, when Protestant views on “progress” and the perfectibility of man first appeared; those views, reinforced by the many scientific discoveries and technological innovations of the period, gained in popularity throughout the Age of Reason and by the 19th century practically constituted a cultic belief that tomorrow would always be better than today and that mankind and society could be “perfected” just as scientific theories or technological devices could be. Tolerance for prostitution, alcohol and other “vices” were replaced by a rigid, punitive belief that these “social ills” could be eliminated entirely, and governments (which never pass up an excuse for repression) responded to the popular belief by prohibiting just about every “vice” imaginable and empowering police and courts to harass, arrest and imprison people for behaviors which were previously considered outside the purview of government.
So widespread did this belief-system become that the First World War was commonly referred to as “The War to End All Wars”; many people actually believed that it would purge the very desire for war out of mankind and result in a new world order of peace and prosperity. Clearly, that did not happen, and many intellectuals realized it even before the war was over. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s a growing number of people realized that just as the Great War had not eliminated armed conflict, and just as Prohibition had not ended the demand for alcohol, so the war against prostitution had not curtailed it in the least. And out of that philosophical soil eventually grew the doctrine of “harm reduction”, the realization that our ancestors had it right in the first place: Human beings are not perfectible and attempts to threaten and beat vice out of them do vastly more harm than good. The philosophy of harm reduction was further bolstered by the growing popularity of cultural pluralism: If people have the right to differing ideas, beliefs and political views, what is the moral basis for banning behaviors which harm nobody else and are not even viewed as vices in some cultures?
Those mired in the traditional Protestant or secular authoritarian mindsets argue that harm reduction is defeatist; while they usually admit that neither humanity nor society is perfectible, they argue that giving up on restricting vices “sends the wrong message” and actively encourages such behaviors. I’m not going to address this position’s underlying assumption that the prevailing idea of rectitude is the correct one, nor the abhorrent notion that any government has the right to enforce its ideas of “correct” behavior on citizens who do not harm others; either of those would be a full column in itself. Instead, I would like to call the reader’s attention to an aspect of game theory called “conditions of victory”; though this may sound esoteric it refers to the simple concept that the participants in any contest may have different criteria for winning that contest. In a child’s game of tag, the condition of victory for “it” is to tag someone, and the condition of victory for everyone else is to escape being tagged. More complex games such as war have much more complex differences; King Leonidas knew he could not possibly defeat the vastly larger Persian force at Thermopylae, so he did not try to do so. His strategy was intended to delay Xerxes, not to stop him, and in that he succeeded. Thus, though the Greeks lost the battle they won the game; the limited resources which would not allow victory under one set of conditions did allow it under another. The United States has defined victory in its “Drug War” as the total elimination of all recreational drugs; under these unrealistic conditions victory is completely impossible. But if those conditions were changed to “reduce the social and economic impact of recreational drugs below x level”, victory is not only possible but can be achieved at a very reasonable cost and in a fairly short time.
Because men are biologically programmed to seek sexual variety, most men will do so; at least two-thirds of married men will at least occasionally seek extramarital sex. No woman has any way of knowing whether the man she chooses will be a member of the minority who is able to resist temptation, so if she defines a “successful marriage” as one in which her husband never strays she is playing Russian Roulette with at least four bullets. But if she defines it as one in which her husband’s probable infidelities cause no overt damage, difficulty or social consequences, all she need do is keep him from getting involved with amateurs. As I wrote in my column of July 21st, whores allow men to cheat in a managed fashion and thereby minimize harm to their wives and children. Far from being a “social evil” as it usually referred to in the United States, prostitution is a positive good because it provides a controlled outlet for male sexual impulses which might otherwise cause tremendous problems, including (but by no means limited to) rape and broken marriages. While it’s true that for a wife to discover her husband has been patronizing whores might damage their marriage, would an affair or constant pressure for unwanted sex do any less? Prostitution is not a panacea for the differing sexual needs between the sexes, but it does greatly reduce the problems; it is the definitive example of the principle of harm reduction.
As I just posted in the other column, I’m rolling around the concept of “Harm Reduction.”
Coming from an abusive religious background, I think that I have been acclimating myself to this principle for several years now without formally naming it.
Largely because, the price of your vices have to be considered.
There are even verses in the Bible that say,
“Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself ?
Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time?
It is good that thou shouldest take hold of this; yea, also from this withdraw not thine hand: for he that feareth God shall come forth of them all.” -Ecclesiastes 7:16-18.
…But this truth, which sounds very akin to Biblically supported harm reduction could NEVER be preached in modern day Protestant settings, lest it be said that the church is “condoning sin.” But it’s always “sins that THEY don’t like.” Too many damn pastors are child molesters themselves for me to take that seriously any more.
So I’ll repeat my question here; I’m pretty sure of Maggie’s answer, but I’d like to throw it out again anyway:
What form of societal relationship structure works best?
I just answered that here.
Holy crap. I was just thinking about this on the way home. I’m so pleased to see that you have so eloquently expressed my thoughts (not to mention organizing them so they are suddenly understandable).
The reason the U.S. refuses to legalize drugs is because that would be surrender. By defining it as a war, we have essentially closed the door on ending it because, for Americans, surrender is unthinkable and victory is impossible.
I guess the best we can hope for is “peace with honor”. I wonder what the hell that will look like…
In any case, the drug war is a giant jobs program for empty headed, testosterone driven, neanderthals.
I’m telling you, Dave, I was your sister in a past life. 🙂
Our ancestors were right about the fact that people are not perfect, and won’t be. They were wrong about a whole ton of other things, from the justice of slavery to the origins of life. A desire to make society better is a good thing, it’s just that trying to punish our way to Utopia is the wrong way to go about it.
I agree with you on harm reduction, and about the conditions of victory. Well-said, and it needs to be said, and often. And well.
Regardless of whether or not men are genetically programmed to want variety, or whether this is a non-genetic, e.g., cultural, feature (probably both factors are involved here), this does not change the fact that men seeking other women is a very frequent phenomenon. I totally agree that remaining blind to this issue and/or considering it simply a ‘character flaw’ of men (by what standards?), is a kind of moralism that ends up doing nothing about it. Nothing other than whining and lecturing — or then misguided actions like a War on Prostitution (as if prostitutes were the cause!).
If people would give up their ideals of sexual fidelity and concentrate on building on the bonds that exist between them as individuals, on the choices they’ve made, on the people to whose happiness they’ve made a commitment… if we simply accepted our sex drives without making them the hostrage of moral principles (as we do with hunger and thirst)… then Maggie’s idea of harm reduction here would be simple common sense. But Sex Is A Big Deal in our culture, so sexual infidelity in any form continues to be seen as a Terrible Problem in need of solution.
So many things would become better in our society if we simply took a simpler view towards sex! How many stupidities would we avoid by simply acknowledging instead of judging!
But no — one has to claim that simple ‘harm reduction’ in the sexual arena — to give people, men or women, a means of pursuing whatever they cannot find at home — is a moral wrong. One has to claim that Sex Is Different. Humans!…
Asephe-
Agree with you. The problem is, that adultery is still that; adultery. It’s cheating. It’s not what people sign up for when they get married.
But. The other side of that is, someone not performing their marital responsibilities. And there begins the conundrum.
And. The very real issue of the natural male attraction to women in their prime. What happens when the faithful wife moves past the flower of her youth?
Also.
I’d hazard a guess that the vast majority of men that want to have new women would NOT be equally enthused about their wives seeking new dick. I know that some would be open to that, but many wouldn’t be. So what happens when people start crying “double standard!!’
So again, totally feel & agree with your point of view…but it has its issues. And not committing adultery is indeed one of the Ten Commandments. However those men often took multiple wives/concubines as well, so I’m not quite sure what God had in mind with that one in terms of practice.
Quite so, Scorch. But my point was that our attachment to fidelity, and to the concept of ‘sexual cheating’ as a moral wrong, is not a good idea. I’d say the same here as Maggie said concerning the definition of “victory” for the War on Drugs as “total elimination of all recreational drugs”: it’s a bad definition for “victory”, one that makes defeat almost a certainty.
People don’t “sign up for” sexual cheating. But I think they should. They would be happier if they did.
The other side of that is, someone not performing their marital responsibilities.
Indeed. And I would treat it as any similar problem of unfulfilled expectations: something has to be done so that the needs underlying these ‘marital responsibilities’ are satisfied. One obvious solution would be sexual cheating: having affairs or casual sex, visiting prostitutes, pornography, etc. But current ideals about relationships make this difficult, much more difficult than it needs to be.
The very real issue of the natural male attraction to women in their prime. What happens when the faithful wife moves past the flower of her youth?
Again, having an affair, seeing a prostitute, etc, would be a good idea. And a rational one. The social moralistic implication — that this would necessarily mean that the man in question no longer loves, no longer is committed to the woman he married, that he is really ‘betraying’ her — I consider simply a mistake, a non sequitur. He may — or may not — want ot give up his commitment, but this is by no means obvious. Ditto for women who have affairs, for whatever reasons.
I’d hazard a guess that the vast majority of men that want to have new women would NOT be equally enthused about their wives seeking new dick.
Indeed. They wouldn’t. And I think they’re wrong. Because they reduce everything to a simple “affair” = “betrayal” equation. She got outside dick? Bad! Whereas I think: whatever it was that happened in their relationship and that made her fall into the arms of a lover would still be there even if there happened to be no lover around to offer her consolation. The husband thinks there is a problem only if his wife actually has a lover; I think the lover is simply a consequence of something else the husband was, and still is, ignoring. (Just like the wife who ignores his husband’s sex drive and thinks there is a problem only if he cheats, rather than seeing his insatisfaction as the problem.)
Exactly. And what’s most telling is that both genders tend to ascribe their own sexual perspective to the other: The betrayed wife says “he doesn’t love me any more!” even though love had nothing to do with her husband’s straying, and the betrayed husband says “why did my wife want a strange man; don’t I satisfy her?” even though sexual satisfaction had nothing to do with his wife’s straying.
One always wants to depart from one’s own viewpoint; whatever X is doing probably has as its reason whatever reason I would have to be doing the same.
It’s difficult to accept that we’re all individuals with different motivations, and that just knowing that she (or he) cheated doesn’t guarantee we’ll know why. Maybe we’re hard-wired to jump to conclusions. If there is one thing which both sexes have with the same overwhelming intensity, it’s the belief that they know it all. 🙁
Also, with the revelation of The “Fuck List” from that college girl, that totally blows holes in the idea that women don’t want variety & don’t crave new dick in the same way that we crave new pussy.
No, it doesn’t. If I show you a white alligator, can you conclude this means all alligators are white? Of course not. The presence of exceptions does not disprove general rules.
Hence the 15% statistic that you referenced?
So just because some women wanna ride as many joysticks as possible doesn’t mean we can extrapolate that to all females as a pattern.
Yah girls like her make me wish I was still in college.
Not exactly. Most women who cheat do so because they’re unhappy at home and are looking for passion.
So she could publish your name, or so you could play Russian Roulette with being the one who’s around when she finally does something really flaky?
Maggie and Scorch, there is truth in both of your viewpoints here. There probably are statistical tendencies in men and women, and they’re probably different. It’s possible that the “Fuck List” woman is an exception (though, judging by the number of such exceptions one sees throughout the blogosphere, I’d rather call them a “minority” than an exception; perhaps like homosexuals among men.).
But still in our interactions we always deal with individuals. Whoever you happen to be with will have his/her quirks — simply because there are so many factors and variables in a person (physiological and psychological) that you’re never going to find someone who is average for all of them. (Actually, whenever we meet someone it is usually exactly the non-average, non-common/normal features of this person that we find more interesting.)
In other words, the next girl you get involved with will certainly have her own quirks and idiosyncrasies, and there’s a chance — 15%? 25%? 5%? who knows? — that this quirk will be a strong sexual appetite. Now, what you can do about that (and whether or not this would make you happy) — that is up to you.
“Exception” is the correct word. Vocal minorities seem larger than they actually are, and just because someone with a blog claims a certain motivation doesn’t mean that actually is her motivation, especially if the one she’s claiming is “cool” or PC. I’m very conscious of this in my own writing, which is one of the reasons I expose my foibles along with my laudable traits; I don’t want any questions about my motives or veracity.
Vocal minorities seem larger than they actually are, and just because someone with a blog claims a certain motivation doesn’t mean that actually is her motivation, especially if the one she’s claiming is “cool” or PC.
Sure, which is why people’s claims for motivations must always be taken with a grain of salt. I’m sure there are other women who are just like you, Maggie, just as I am sure there are others who aren’t. The numbers aren’t there, so I’m not going to decide between “minority” and “exception” (or about whether the reasons for either relate more to nurture or to nature). I will only try to keep my own emotions and/or desires about ‘what I would like to be the case’ out of the final decision (if at all possible…).
Minorities can be very vocal; which is why it is better to cruise the blogosphere and check their numbers. There seem to be quite a lot of women out there behaving like this “Fuck List” girl but without much hope of achieving fame…
Not fame, attention. Big ol’ difference, love.
I’m sure there is, but not in a way that makes their opinions wrong. I’m sure you’re happy with your blog getting attention; it doesn’t follow that you’re lying about yourself in it, Maggie.
A difference, to be a difference…
Asehpe, if you can’t see that there’s a vast difference between writing to get good attention to an idea and fucking random people to get any attention to one’s person, I’m sure I can’t explain it to you. 🙁
I can see the difference, Maggie; I’m just saying that the blogger who posted her “Fuck List” may crave attention and be telling the truth about her desires. You can do both, you know. You don’t have to choose. So: the difference in question is not really a relevant difference, because the whole point for me is whether or not she is sincere, which is independent of her desire for attention.
I hope I don’t sound too dense. Frankly, I don’t think we disagree here, Maggie. I think we’re just cross-talking because we’re attributing to each other some motivation other than what is really there.
“So she could publish your name,”
=I was actually going to say in my initial response ‘except for the whole publishing my name bit.’ ;D
“or so you could play Russian Roulette with being the one who’s around when she finally does something really flaky?”
=And what exactly does *that* mean? You’re assuming that she has a screw loose because she made her ‘Fuck List?’
Isn’t it obvious? She clearly has a pathological need for attention, and once her notoriety from this childish “list” fades she’ll do something else. Mark my words, you haven’t heard the last of her.
That may very well be true, but then again it might not be. Or that might be true for this case, but not for the next one.
We always want to see more rule-based behavior, more predictability, more essentialism in people’s behavior than is really there.
“whatever it was that happened in their relationship and that made her fall into the arms of a lover would still be there even if there happened to be no lover around to offer her consolation.
The husband thinks there is a problem only if his wife actually has a lover; I think the lover is simply a consequence of something else the husband was, and still is, ignoring.
(Just like the wife who ignores his husband’s sex drive and thinks there is a problem only if he cheats, rather than seeing his unsatisfaction as the problem.)”
=Exactly true, but remember that most men don’t understand how women work.
I still say there needs to be a law requiring this type of education before couples get married.
Oh, you don’t have to convince me. I find it funny that some of the most important things for actually having a chance of achieving happiness in life — how to build relationships with the other gender(es) — are never formally addressed in a person’s education!… We all have to learn by trial and error. Not the best method. 🙁
Indeed. The problem with statistical tendencies is that they are not rigid laws; there always are exceptions, sometimes many of them (a ‘minority’). Which is why I do think that, under the appropriate circumstances, women (not all women, not under all circumstances) could very well pay for sex.
In fact, just searching around, one finds articles like this one, from The Times, in which a woman admits that she pays for sex with a man, and considers it the best solution for her situation. http://www.sassyvibes.com.au/component/jaggyblog/women-pay-for-sex.htmlThis other article talks about a male escort service for women (in which sex is on the bill about 60% of the time). Hell, even the BBC online has an article about male escorts in England.
People want to think in absolutes, Scorch: we tend to interpret “men are X” and “women are Y” as inflexible laws. We should indeed learn more about statistics, statistical correlations, and their strange consequences.
“When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog, that is news.”
These stories you reference are newsworthy precisely because of their rarity, which is why I find it so amusing when “social construction of gender” people or those laboring under the “myth of the wanton” try to use them as support for their positions.
“we tend to interpret “men are X” and “women are Y” as inflexible laws.”
I know it’s a nerdy nitpick, but: women are X, and men are Y. XX and XY, to be even more nerdy nitpicky.
These women aren’t paying for the presence of dick; they’re paying for the absence of the dating game. A woman can usually get all the dick she wants, without paying for it. But those dicks come attached to men with expectations, agendas, and so forth. Getting away from that may well be worth some dollars, euros, etc.
In fact, many men hire prostitutes for the exact same reason. A date, sex or no, doesn’t generally cost $300. But not having to play will-she-or-won’t-she, not having to try to pretend you’re a certain kind of guy because you read somewhere that that’s what makes women hot, etc., that’s worth some extra money.
You’re almost right on; what they’re paying for is the chance to pretend to be like men without the possible social or physical consequences. It’s the same reason women only go to see male strippers in groups; there is no fallout because every one of them can just claim to have gone along with the crowd. The sex isn’t really important in either case; it’s the experience of doing something different and shocking, like showing your tits at Mardi Gras or getting out of a car at a traffic light and running around it before the light changes. Or spreading your legs for a bunch of guys and then publishing a “fuck list”.
These stories you reference are newsworthy precisely because of their rarity, which is why I find it so amusing when “social construction of gender” people or those laboring under the “myth of the wanton” try to use them as support for their positions.
But the point of the stories is that they aren’t such rarities, Maggie (cf. the male escort service in Australia), just “minority”.
To what extent is the label “exception” (rather than “minority”) an attempt at pathologizing a different opinion? Don’t anti-prostitution cruisaders also say that any “happy hookers” are exceptions and shouldn’t be taken into account when deciding what to do with prosituttion?
The equation “less frequent” = “freak” is not really a fair one.
what they’re paying for is the chance to pretend to be like men without the possible social or physical consequences
“Pretend” is not really a verifiable word here; we need more studies on that. (Anti-prostitution activists who go after johns also make all kinds of claims about their inner reasons being something other than simply the actual desire to do what they’re doing. Sometimes they’re right — I’m sure some men go to prostitutes for pathological reasons — but not always.
The world isn’t that simple, Maggie. We tend to simplify it and re-gloss it according to our own internal feelings, since this is the basis on which we understand it. That often works; but not always. Hence the need for science.
Ah, but they are rare; you forget that modern telecommunications make the exceptional very visible. I’ll play Devil’s advocate with your example; how many women living now do you think have EVER paid for sex? I’m going to make up a really big number and say three million, which is likely many times too high and would comfortably support a much larger number of female-specific male prostitutes than actually exist. The female population of the world is 3 BILLION, which means 0.1% of women who have paid for sex compared with 70% of men. I think I’m justified in calling 0.1% an “exception”; it’s probably lower than the percentage of people who survive gunshots to the head.
0.1% is the number of people in my country (Brazil) that belong to indigeous groups in the Amazon, Maggie. The number of speakers of Navajo — the biggest community of speakers of a Native American language in the US — is about 170,000, which is less than 0.1% of Americans. Yet we don’t call them “exceptions”; we call them “minorities”.
Do you see that there is a game of semantic (actually pragmatic) implications here? We like to call things that deviate from our beliefs and/or experience “exceptions” because we feel this gives us the right to ignore them. If it’s “only an exception”, I don’t have to account for it, or listen to it, and it has nothing to teach me about the human conditon. A “minority”, on the other hand, seems to deserve respect…
Some feminists claim that the number of prostitutes who are happy with their profession is very small and non-representative, like your 0.1%. They would call people like you, Amanda, Kelly, Douglas, Brandy etc. “exceptions,” and for a similar reason: because they want to ignore you and concentrate on the “real prostitution”, which is victimization of women in a male-dominated society, yadda-yadda-yadda.
Even if this were right, it still doesn’t follow that happy prostitutes should be ignored or prosecuted–something that they usually don’t get.
And that, without disputing your estimation of 3 million women who might pay for sex with men. (In a world where the odds are that they’d never need to, given how easy it is for them to get men, this number would be much more significant than it looks. If getting men became gradually more difficult, how much might this number increase?…) As you yourself say, it’s a guess. Which is why we need to wait for the studies with good, sound statistical methodology. (The current stats for homosexuality — about 10% of the population, they say — are way higher than what most of my highschool friends would have expected, back in more anti-gay days; they also thought homosexuals were simply “exceptions”.)
A unified culture of people who live in one place and represent 0.1% in a larger, arbitrarily-defined area is not REMOTELY the same as 0.1% of all women spread over a world, Asehpe. The speakers of those languages constitute a vastly higher percentage of people who live in certain areas; women who pay for sex don’t constitute anything but an exception anywhere. You’re trying to play with statistics to make a point, and it’s beneath you.
Yes, but that is a lie. If you can’t understand the difference between a lie and a real statistic this conversation is pointless. Not that my “3 million” was a real statistic, mind you; it was vastly EXAGGERATED to make a point. The real number is probably at least an order of magnitude smaller.
They’re higher than real research suggests as well. That number is favored by gay activists, but serious research says more like 3-5%.
(Sorry for posting this twice — I posted it in the wrong sub-thread by mistake. My bad.)
Sigh!… Consider all kinds of distributed small groups, Maggie, if you want: those whose IQ is above 130; or who earn more than $100,000 a month; or who learn Finnish as their second language; or Americans who enjoy Russian science fiction (Strugatsky, Gorin, Yefremov…); …
All I’m saying is that a small group of people gets called “exception” when we don’t really want to have to deal with them, and a “minority” when we do — regardless of their actual numbers or defining features. Which is the point of my anti-prostitution example. Of course it’s a lie, but they don’t say happy hookers are an expection because it’s a lie; they say it because they know the effects the word “exception” has. And so do you.
Am I really saying something so absurd and contrary to your experience? Do you really think that the use of “exception” is solely based on statistical definitinons (which wouldn’t work either, because no statistical textbook I know defines “exceptions” and “minorities” in any way that makes them incompatible)?
If it were two orders of magnitude smaller, it still wouldn’t change the truth value of my claims, Maggie — which is why your reaction bewilders me. It doesn’t matter to my claims how many women actually are paying for sex; only the fact that there are some. No matter how many they are, they can, just like you, say “we’re here, we’re not all that queer, get used to it”.
And of course you know that the number might just as well be a couple of orders of magnitude larger, and that also wouldn’t change anything.
Minorities don’t deserve respect because they’re larger than some arbitrary number, Maggie, but because they’re composed of people, and people deserve respect.
Which is still 30-50 times more than 0.1%, your arbritary threshhold for respectability (‘exception’ vs. ‘minority’).
Maggie… It seems you think I’m trying to somehow revive the myth of the wanton woman. I’m not; and I’ve said before that I’m not. All I’m saying is that not all women have sex drives exactly equal to yours. Given that humans (including women) vary significantly in pretty much every feature of their physiology and psychology, why should that be a big surprise?
I repeat: this is not equivalent to wanting to revive the myth of the wanton woman. You don’t have to prove that every woman (or at least any woman beyond your threshhold of 0.1%) who claims to have a high sex drive or who would pay for sex must be fooliing herself, trying to get attention, or be lying — debunking the myth of the wanton woman doesn’t depend on that.
Yes. The issue of a woman paying for sex has NOTHING to do with sex drive, dildos, or any of the other stuff you keep bringing up when addressing the subject. It’s ice cream in the hand, as I keep telling you over and over and over and over. And your insistence on straining after the gnat of the insignificant number of women who pay for sex is a worse distraction than Will’s obsessing about transsexual prostitutes.
Here’s my position, once and for all, for the record: The GREAT majority of prostitutes are female. Nearly ALL customers are male. And if we concentrate on winning rights for those groups to do what comes naturally the rest will ride along unnoticed. I’m talking about transporting dogs out of a forest fire, and you keep saying “what about the fleas?” Frankly, I don’t give a damn about the fleas, but since they will inevitably be transported when we move the dogs why are you so worried about them? 🙁
This is the most puzzling part of your reaction to my comments on the topic. You seem to think I’m saying something about the goals that our activism should have, when I am saying nothing of the sort. How does “there are women with high sex drive, and this tells us something about sex, men, and women” lead to thinking that one shouldn’t “concentrate on winning rights for those groups [prostitutes and johns] to do what comes naturally”? Do you see there is a non-sequitur here — some hidden premise that you’re attributing to me without stating what it is? (Maybe something like “high-sex-drive women are the goal all women should strive for” or some other similar nonsense?) Of course if we win these rights the high-sex-drive women will ride along; don’t you see that this has little to do with what I’m saying? It’s actually entire compatible with it?
To put it clearly; this is NOT about activism (praxis), this is about knowledge (episteme), about (ideally scientific) understanding (theoria).
Unless you still believe I’m trying to set activist goals here, Maggie, I really don’t understand what you mean here. “Ice cream in the hand” is perfectly compatible with everything I’m saying here.
A distraction, you say. How exactly? How does claiming that there are women with a high sex drive, and that this means something for our understanding of people and sex drives, distract anyone from fighting for what is right? This is simply a different discussion, a different topic, which people partake in if they think it’s interesting. You might just as well say that discussions about global warming or the rights of animals are distractions. Will to change your word usage and thought you should mention transsexual prostitutes in your blog; whereas I don’t. You mention the topic of male and female sex drives by yourself, without any prompting by me or anyone else.
I happen to think that sex and people are an interesting topic of discussion, and that the final word about it hasn’t been said yet. You’re free to disagree; but that’s not a distraction, anymore than talking to your husband about politics is a distraction. It’s just another topic.
Why is then the word “sex” present in both expressions — paying for sex, and sex drive? Why are both topics of interest for sexologists?
I think your “not giving a damn” about the fleas (who, you realize, are actually also dogs) is the actual explanation for our misunderstandings here, Maggie. Since I’m not talking about activism goals — I obvioulsy agree that the dogs you call fleas will inevitably be trasported together with the other dogs — that is, I think, the only possible explanation.
I care about them because I think less frequent cases are always interesting — they tell us certain things about a topic that the most frequent cases don’t. (Which is why many scientists love to do case studies on outliers — they tend to reveal interesting facts that are not obvious in the most frequent cases and often shed a new light on the more general types. Haven’t you noticed how most scientific experiments are about rare situations?)
Some people don’t “give a damn” about prostitutes and their rights, because said prostitutes aren’t obviously present in his or her everyday life and therefore seem irrelevant. I think you’re doing the same with high-sex-drive women. It’s your prerrogative: you may find them uninteresting if you want. I disagree; I think they are interesting, just as other sexual minority groups — homosexuals, asexuals, fetishists, celibate priests, rapists — are also interesting.
Not because I am “worried about them”; I actually think their situation is getting better (maybe thanks to the work of activists like yourself). Rather because I find them interesting; because I am ultimately very curious about male and female desire, about men and women, and a comprehensive theory of how they work; and, as many scientists would agree, I think the less frequent cases have something to contribute to such a theory.
Since you are also clearly interested in male and female desire (you make many claims on the topic in your posts), it is your apparent lack of interest in them that seems strange. It is as if you thought you already have a perfect informal theory of sex drives, and that science has nothing new to discover that you don’t already know; the only remaining problems are the social misconceptions that you so rightfully fight against. You may be right, of course; but if so, you’ll be the first person in history to be right about thinking s/he already knows everything about any given topic. 🙂
To summarize:. As far as I can see, the only point of disagreement between us, Maggie, is whether or not high-sex-drive women have something to contribute to a theory of sex, men, and women. I think they do; you think they don’t. You also make estimations of their number, while I’m more doubtful about that, but that’s no big deal; neither of us knows anyway. Aside from that, I don’t see any factual disagreements. Do you?
In this case, and if you agree with the summary, we could simply stop here. Unless you have something to say on the topic (i.e. why high-sex-drive womens are or aren’t important for our understanding of male and female sex drives), why continue to talk as if I was saying something other than I am?
I understand.
What I find most intriguing is when Maggie McLovely said this:
“just because someone with a blog claims a certain motivation doesn’t mean that actually is her motivation, especially if the one she’s claiming is “cool” or PC.”
That never ceases to amaze me…clearly because, I’m not a woman. That some females, even porn stars, want you to *think* that they are these lust crazed sex kittens that love to do the mazombo with as many men as they can…when it’s actually not a physical thing at all. That just blows my mind.
That also goes back to my whole perspective on the Sex & the City wave, which I have been informed is a skewed one. I always thought that the point of that show was, “Look! Women can have no strings attached sex just like men! Look! Women can sleep around without stigma!”
…when actually, it has been suggested that those characters were the invention of gay male writers, living out their fantasies through them.
“Isn’t it obvious? She clearly has a pathological need for attention, and once her notoriety from this childish “list” fades she’ll do something else. Mark my words, you haven’t heard the last of her.”
Obvious to another woman, yes. 🙂 What we see is a girl that appears to be eager to open her legs as much as possible, and that’s all men need to know. But, the ability of another female to look past that, and call it what is…to basically say, “No honey, you’re not that hot in the panties. You’re an attention whore, not a professional” just fascinates me to no end. Some women know that the lust crazed woman is the epitome of the male fantasy, so they spin it…but for the *attention,* not the penises. Just amazing.
Which leads me then to another question? How ‘real’ is nymphomania?
It’s all about the marketing.
Darren Star, the show’s creator, is a gay man and for several seasons the entire writing staff were gay men. The show was not about women at all, but about gay men’s fantasies of how they would act if they were women.
But Scorch, guys can do the same thing with male bullshit. I’m sure you’ve been in situations before where you see a guy acting a certain way that all the women think means one thing but you know means something else. The only difference is that there is no powerful male “-ism” dedicated to spreading lies and misinformation about such behaviors even to guys themselves.
Oh, it’s real, but it’s pathological. Mental illness is an exception to every rule.
“But Scorch, guys can do the same thing with male bullshit. I’m sure you’ve been in situations before where you see a guy acting a certain way that all the women think means one thing but you know means something else. ”
=That’s true, I wasn’t denying that at all; moreso I was marveling at:
-Your ability to instantly discern that no matter how much a woman may act like she’s out of control with lust, most times it just isn’t true. It’s just that, an act.
-The lengths that some women will go to to construct that image.
-The seeming correspondence between what men will do for sex and what women will do for attention.
How ‘real’ is nymphomania?
“Oh, it’s real, but it’s pathological. Mental illness is an exception to every rule.”
…It’s a mental disorder? Hmmm…I’ve never studied it. I thought that it was women that had more testosterone in their systems than normal and were thus hornier than the average female.
Oh, it’s a disorder all right, and a serious one, as I discussed in my column of December 28th.
“In fact, many men hire prostitutes for the exact same reason. A date, sex or no, doesn’t generally cost $300. But not having to play will-she-or-won’t-she, not having to try to pretend you’re a certain kind of guy because you read somewhere that that’s what makes women hot, etc., that’s worth some extra money.”
Currently having this conversation on Twitter.
“You’re almost right on; what they’re paying for is the chance to pretend to be like men without the possible social or physical consequences. It’s the same reason women only go to see male strippers in groups; there is no fallout because every one of them can just claim to have gone along with the crowd. The sex isn’t really important in either case; it’s the experience of doing something different and shocking, like showing your tits at Mardi Gras or getting out of a car at a traffic light and running around it before the light changes. Or spreading your legs for a bunch of guys and then publishing a “fuck list”.”
Ah women, always about the thrill, only sometimes about the drill.
It’s the same reason women only go to see male strippers in groups; there is no fallout because every one of them can just claim to have gone along with the crowd.
Note that this looks more like a cultural phenomenon than something that necessarily comes from their instincts. You know, ‘good girls’ aren’t expected to like that, just like ‘good girls’ aren’t supposed to be prostitutes. But as Maggie clearly shows that good girls can be excellent prostitutes, I’m sure there are some good girls who go to stripper clubs because of the sexual rush, and then simply use the excuse of being in a crowd to mask that (‘of course I’m a good girl, I wouldn’t actually enjoy that if it weren’t for the laughs in the group with my friends’).
I actually tend to disagree with Maggie on this one, Scorch. I think she’s downplaying the importance of “exceptions” (or “minorities”), plus what they tell us about people in general, and men and women in particular.
My claim is that women are individuals, and will show a bell-shaped distribution of behaviors for a number of features, including need (and kind of need) for sexual gratification. “Woman”, to paraphrase Michel Foucault, is a myth which agrees only to a certain extent with every individual woman. (In fact, what makes a certain woman an individual is precisely the ways in which she doesn’t correspond to whatever expectations common knowledge about ‘how women are’ may have made you expect from her.)
To pathologize every woman with a stronger and more active sexual drive as a “nymphomaniac” would be wrong. Labels are convenient reference points; individuals often fail to coincide with these points. The blogospehre is full of examples, for all sexes.
Rather than pointing at nymphomaniacs, I would point at dildos, vibrators, and similar tools for women who seek sexual gratification. Ever since they were introduced as “massage helpers” they remained popular — so much so that the types and models have multiplied. Looking at the many kinds, colors, shapes, modes of vibration, and so on; looking at their popularity among women (who, in buying them, are after all paying for sex, aren’t they?); I can only conclude that the underlying market cannot be so small.
If everything that were ‘obvious’ were always true, we would never need science. But we do, and science has a history of showing us that certain things we take for granted because of our experience aren’t true.
Asehpe, self-gratification and sex with men are not at ALL the same thing to women, for reasons which should be obvious. It is not possible to draw ANY conclusions about female sexuality from the existence of dildos and vibrators, no matter how much the male mind may be tempted to do so.
Neither is masturbation to men the same thing as sex with women. But to claim that they are wholly unrelated would indeed raise eyebrows.
What dildos and the frequency of masturbation tell me is that women do have autonomous sexual impulses — it’s not all about ‘getting attention from men.’ Why they should pursue these impulses with men, as opposed to by themselves, that is indeed a different matter. But at some point I thought we disagreed on the former, not on the latter — hence my bringing it up.
Actually, I’d be curious about your views on sex toys, women, and prostitution, Maggie. Perhaps some day you could make that a topic of one of your regular posts?
What “view” could I possibly have on sex toys? You might as well ask my opinion on rodeos or canasta.
So none of your clients ever asked for toys? It’s funny — most sex shops claim that the number of toys told to couples rather than to single women is increasing, as men learn that sex toys are no threat to their masculinity. But maybe your clients were more conservative, and in this case it’s OK if you don’t have an opinion. Sex toys only matter for a theory of sex anyway, not for pro-prostitution activism.
I misunderstood; it did not seem to me that you were asking about my willingness to put on sex-toy shows for customers. The answer to that was, I wasn’t. I own a dildo that I was willing to bring along to put on a show on request, but I was unwilling to cater to the guys who wanted some whole “bag of tricks” because in agency escorting those are only a small minority. Some girls do cater to those guys and IMHO they were welcome to them.
Oh, OK. So it’s not a big deal then — just an extra that some people asked for. No need for a special post then.
“Rather than pointing at nymphomaniacs, I would point at dildos, vibrators, and similar tools for women who seek sexual gratification. Ever since they were introduced as “massage helpers” they remained popular — so much so that the types and models have multiplied. Looking at the many kinds, colors, shapes, modes of vibration, and so on; looking at their popularity among women (who, in buying them, are after all paying for sex, aren’t they?); I can only conclude that the underlying market cannot be so small.”
=I tend to agree with this as well. It makes no sense to say that women don’t desire sex for the physical pleasure in the same way that we do…but I agree with Maggie that women can have other more complex and decidedly feminine motivations mixed in with the simple desire to just get off.
=It seems that women have to work harder & longer to achiever orgasm…that’s never true for the average man from about the age of 13. That being the case, it makes a lot of sense to me that once some women know what it feels like, they’d crave it just like we do.
=I don’t think it’s arguable that a man’s testosterone level is clearly higher than a woman’s…if for no other reason than we have testes, and they don’t. If they had more, then, that would equal more muscle, more hair, a deeper voice, etc. So in the final analysis I have to agree with you that people have to be looked at as individuals. Some things are probably generally true gender wise, but there are other things that are specific to that person.
=I still agree with Maggie tho, that’s it’s easier for a woman to settle herself inside of one relationship that’s emotionally satisfying, and turn her back on sex with strangers, than it is for a man to do so. If they had the exact same kind of drive that we do, they would fuck all of the men that want to fuck them. Because that’s certainly easy for a man to do if given the opportunity.
What I don’t like is the label “women” being used as something other than statistical tendencies, Scorch. (Maybe people don’t really understand what statistics is, and keep trying to find some “essential feature”, some “universal truth” inside statistical data. Whereas what statistics mostly tell us is that nothing is universal, even though some things are very, even overwhelmingly, frequent.)
If they had the exact same kind of drive that we do, they would fuck all of the men that want to fuck them.
I agree that everything suggests they don’t have the same drive we do, Scorch. What I don’t like is people going around with their favorite theory as to what exactly the difference is. I have my own favorite theory (the difference is intensity: men fly, and women float), and I defend it; but I try to remind myself that I could be wrong.
Besides, regardless of the cause of this difference; no matter if it’s spiritual, hormonal, cultural, psych-evolutionary, whatever; isn’t it the case that we have to deal with it in our real life? Even worse; don’t we have to deal with each individual as such, with his/her quirks and anomalies? So isn’t it better to develop strategies for dealing with variability, rather than insist on certainties based on statistical tendencies?
It seems that women have to work harder & longer to achiever orgasm…that’s never true for the average man from about the age of 13.
Again, that’s a statistical tendency; every impotent young man, be the reasons psychological or physiological, would beg to disagree with you. Considering how Viagra, Cialis & cia. become more and more popular with younger and younger groups of men (I don’t have the numbers, but I’ve seen studies on this somewhere), I’m inclined to think that the number of men thinking that “today might be the day in which they will fail” is increasing.
Still: if women (in average) have to work more for orgasms, it doesn’t follow that they (in average) don’t want them. Only that they may give up at points in which men (in average) still wouldn’t. Which we all already know from our life experience. Right?
I still agree with Maggie tho, that’s it’s easier for a woman to settle herself inside of one relationship that’s emotionally satisfying, and turn her back on sex with strangers, than it is for a man to do so.
Sure. This is in no way incompatible with my opinion. What the reasons for that are, I think, may need some more research; and the fact that a minority of women will not do that, but actually follow different behavioral paths, shouldn’t be forgotten — just in case you happen to see yourself married to one of them.
Again, I have to agree with the notion that statistical data that points to frequencies is not the foundation for the conclusion of absolute truths.
I also agree that numbers ultimately mean jack…it doesn’t matter what the ‘numbers’ say…it matters what your & your particular partner’s needs are.
I agree again that it would be foolish to go into a relationship thinking that “well you’re a woman so I just assume that you think like this.” ‘Cause it ain’t necessarily so.
I am also intrigued by motivations as well….it almost of necessity has to be a particular combination of elements based on the individual…biology, psychology, cultural training, social norms.
But Maggie’s experience as a working girl tends to yield quite a bit of rich knowledge about us as men…when you have so many men saying the same kinds of things over and over again, there has to be some truth to it.
I also agree that numbers ultimately mean jack…it doesn’t matter what the ‘numbers’ say…it matters what your & your particular partner’s needs are.
Hm, I wouldn’t go that far. Numbers do mean something. I use statistics in my job every day, and it is a tremendously useful tool to find trends and correlations that don’t immediately stand out.
The problem I see is people using stats and then forgetting that what they get is stats. They think they’ve found Newton’s law of gravitation, when in fact they only found a correlation. Correlations are great — they just aren’t laws. ‘100%’ is a very rare result indeed.
But I agree with the conclusion. Even if your partner turns out to agree in every respect with the ‘average’ image of women and their sex drive… still you’re dealing with her, not with “the average woman”, and she’ll certainly have quirks of her own in some other area. My motto: always pay attention to the person. (And oh! how difficult this is already!…) If she’s like the stats say she should be, great! You can use the usual recipes then. But if she isn’t, to hell with the stats! They’re not going to help, and you’re going to have to be resourceful.
I am also intrigued by motivations as well….it almost of necessity has to be a particular combination of elements based on the individual…biology, psychology, cultural training, social norms.
So am I. People’s motivations, and how similar (or different) they may be from the ‘average’ or from the cultural image of what they should be, are fascinating to me. (The book I’m reading right now, Jonah Lehrer’s The Decisive Moment: How The Brain Makes Up Its Mind, is full of things that agree, and of things that don’t agree, with our traditional ideas about what motivates our decisions…)
But Maggie’s experience as a working girl tends to yield quite a bit of rich knowledge about us as men…when you have so many men saying the same kinds of things over and over again, there has to be some truth to it.
I’m sure there is. But what truth, Scorch? What truth? People said for millennia that the sun revolves around the earth; and yet it doesn’t. People say all the time that children are innocent asexual beings, and that it’s bad for them to be exposed to anything even remotely sexual; and yet I think this isn’t true. People say all the time that prostitutes are either evil predators or exploited victims (remember the anti-prostitution “emoitional argument”: “who in his/her right mind would ever deliberately choose to be a prostitute without being forced by circumstnaces?”; they think the answer is ‘obvious’, don’t they?); yet Maggie, and many others over the internet, show us that neither option is necessarily true.
I’m sure Maggie knows a lot about men. I do listen to everything she says, and I’ve found a number of new ideas here that I am really thakful for — I hope my comments make that clear. I’m not lying. But I do think that she doesn’t know all about men. Or even about women. Because, ultimately… nobody does. Everybody’s theory has weak points. So does hers. The “ultimate truth”, assuming it exists, is very elusive.
Well, I can see what you’re both saying, often without a kind of pedantic view on the numbers themselves.
It makes sense that the vast majority of sex workers are women, and that almost 100% of the clientele is male. It makes sense that women crave attention in precisely the same way that men crave sex, and just like men, will do ridiculous things to get it. It makes sense that the sexual experience of pleasuring one’s self isn’t the same as having sex with a person, and how a woman’s emotions about those experiences could be different. It makes sense that while women too can want variety, that desire seems to be way more deeply rooted in the male biology & psychology than in females.
I also can see how there can be exceptions to all of the above, that there actually might be some real wanton women, that a high need for attention AND a higher than normal sex drive could exist in the same woman, and that it’s not really a wise practice to project onto any current or potential partners, as they must be understood as individuals, regardless of overall trends.
I also can see the overall point of the title of the post, which is indeed, ‘Harm Reduction.’
Laws can never be drawn to either mandate human hearts or change sexual natures, even if there are exceptions, i.e., horny women & more emotional men.
But there certainly needs to be an adjustment in a legal system that in essence spends resources on victimless crimes.
Indeed. I think everybody here is in agreement with that.
The problem is, as Maggie herself points out, with wrong expectations. It’s interesting to ask why there are such expectations: when is it we decided to make out of sex something that it is not? When is it we decided to have laws reflecting this imperfect impression about sex? But whatever the answer, it is clear that our system doesn’t do these things. It tries to punish people for victimless crimes (prostitution, marijuana…) instead of concentrating on real problems (cf. Maggie’s “Autoimmune Disorder” post). Changing it is difficult because many (maybe most?) people try to protect this system — either it serves them in some way, or then these people are really convinced that victimless crimes actually are crimes with real intrinsic victims (drug addicts, male-oppressed ‘prostituted women’, etc.). But clearly it must change, if the situation is to improve.
Let’s hope that sex workers will be able to get more visibility, as they deserve, and that if people actually get to see more about them they’ll stop seeing them necessarily as a problem.
Sure–if again you understand you’re talking about statistical tendencies. It’s not hard to find men who crave attention–lots of them in show biz.
Pre-CISE-ly! Which is why the social myths conflating sex and love are wrong. A woman who masturbates with a dildo is NOT betraying her husband or girlfriend; neither is a man who looks at porn or sees a prostitute. At least, not necessarily: these things might be symptoms of a problem, and it’s OK to wonder about that. But they might also not be; or the problem might not be simply lack of love.
It’s not so difficult to understand women in that respect, since a man’s emotions about these experiences — masturbation and sex with another person — are also different. Or else, why would men ever need women for sex? We both know that men can have very intense orgasms from masturbation (often more intense than most women could give them); yet we also both know that this is not enough. Indeed there are different needs at play here, and the male sex drive is not as simple as it seems.
Indeed, that is exactly what I think. Maybe to me, Scorch, this is obvious because one of my first experiences, in my very early childhood, was that of the difference: because I was very different from others in my family, it was always very obvious to be that I was an avis rara, a rare bird, that others — including other men — were in many respects not like me. So I’ve always been very sensitive to differences in other people, to the things in them that are not like the ‘average person’ (whatever that is).
I think Maggie thinks I’m trying to tell her ‘what women are like’, as if I knew that any better than she does. Since that is actually not what I’m trying to do, we keep cross-talking.
That never ceases to amaze me…clearly because, I’m not a woman. That some females, even porn stars, want you to *think* that they are these lust crazed sex kittens that love to do the mazombo with as many men as they can…when it’s actually not a physical thing at all. That just blows my mind.
Actually, I don’t find that difficult to understand. It’s a bit like the show biz: movies are about the things the public wants to see (since ultimately they have to make money), not about what the actors are personally interested in or believe in — which is why they are actors.
Is it really so difficult to understand that many women would pretend to like things they don’t in order to get the things they do want? I mean, don’t we men also often, in all kinds of situations, tell other people we ‘like’ or ‘don’t like’ certain things just because we want to impress them, and get from them something that we indeed really want? Have you really never done anything like this in your life — lied about something to get something else?
Perhaps you feel this way because it seems to you they wouldn’t have to pretend to be ‘crazy sex kittens’ in order to get attention. But judging by most men’s usual reactions, isn’t it clear that pretending to be ‘crazy sex kittens’ is a strong attention-getter — just like prostitution is indeed a good way to make money quickly?
I managed to get plenty of business without any pretense, but that’s because my looks and personality were enough. I’ve noticed that the more ordinary a girl’s looks and the less interesting her personality, the more likely she is to pretend to be in the business for sex rather than profit.
Yes, you could call this the “me so horny” principle. 🙂
This also corresponds to my own experience with girls in general, Maggie: the ones who look less immediately attractive may compensate for that with more willingness to have sex. Just as less hot guys are also more likely to try the ‘I’m a nice guy’ approach than the ones who think their hotness is enough. All is good in the soul market…
Resulting in fat ladies getting laid more than the prettier ones. And that has been statistically proven iin scientific studies.
For those on these comments who are wondering about women with high sex drives I’m 1 of those and you’re welcome to ask me about it. I had sex only friendships with others outside of my relationship for a while and consider at times going back to that. My fiance and I have had an arrangement for most of the time we’ve been together and still have 1. I’ve considered for a while posting about this and have decided to since some on here are curious about it.
Thank you, Laura! I’m sure you won’t have long to wait. 🙂
Hey there Laura-
First off let me say thanks for your honesty.
I guess my questions would be as follows:
1) What’s your motivation for wanting multiple partners? Is it just as simple as one person can’t satisfy you, do you enjoy the sensation, or it more typical ‘seeking attention’?
2) What problems have a high sex drive caused you as a woman?
3) Have their ever been any jealous issues with your partner?
4) Have you ever felt yourself start to fall in love with any of your sex only friendships( that happened to a friend of mine who also had sex only relationships)?
5) Knowing that you can’t speak for all women, but based on your experience, do you find yourself being the exception among women, or the rule?
Scorch’s questions are basically the same I had, with perhaps one added question:
– do you see yourself as ‘just like high-sex-drive men’ (or approaching them) in sexual behavior, or do you see differences between your behavior and high-sex-drive men that don’t depend on the intensity of your interest?
Thanks for your questions! Unfortunately, I’m getting over a bad cold, BUT will answer your questions as soon as I feel well enough to. I’m hoping that’ll be before this coming weekend. It’s liberating to be able to come here and talk freely about this part of my life! There’s other message boards, etc., I belong to that aren’t as welcoming with this subject. Thanks for your patience and I’ll answer as soon as I feel well enough to.
Thehumanscorch:
Hey there Laura-
First off let me say thanks for your honesty.
My reply: You’re welcome! Over time, I’m being more open about this part of my life.
I guess my questions would be as follows:
1) What’s your motivation for wanting multiple partners? Is it just as simple as one person can’t satisfy you, do you enjoy the sensation, or it more typical ‘seeking attention’?
My reply: There were several reasons I started seeing others. I’d already decided to do this when I met the man who would become my fiance. I’m very thankful that he also wanted to be with someone who wanted what we call an “arrangement”. He was also the man I lost my virginity to and he’s always satisfied me sexually. So, yes, 1 reason was because of enjoying the sensations. I know that explaining my background some will also explain this. I was fascinated with sex for a lot of years and had very few relationships before I met my fiance. I was verbally sexually abused after I had my 1st sexual experiences as an older teenager with the 1st man I loved. I also was verbally/emotionally abused for many years before that. As a result of the abuse I became frigid. There was nothing wrong with me physically I found out later. I was still fascinated by sex, but was plain terrified of the prospect of physical intimacy and had such low self-esteem I literally believed that no man would ever love me or want to have sex with me. I lived like this for several years for at least a few reasons. What got me to get the help I needed plus got me to WANT TO change was a double murder in my family. This shook me up so badly (and who wouldn’t be shaken by this greatly?) that I started to make changes within months after the murders. 1 of the great things that came out of it was I was AWAY from my abuser for the 1st time in my life. Along with the grief and pretty constant conflicting emotions, there was also a HUGE desire on my part to TRULY LIVE for the 1st time. I started to get moments of joy within the 1st months after the murders. I also self-destructed in some ways due to blaming myself to a degree for the events leading up the murders. However, I’ll always be proud of how well I did function after the murders in some ways. 1 of these was to get counseling that had been needed for years. My wonderful psychologist and I started working on the frigidity issue within 2 years of my starting treatment. I wanted to have a relationship PLUS sex only friendships with others. Again, I was very blessed to meet the man who would become my fiance who wanted this same thing. I was also very sexually inexperienced and wanted to make up for the years I was afraid. The amount of desire I had grew hugely once I wasn’t being abused anymore. I also wanted to see if I really WAS desirable. As far as attention seeking went, very few knew about this part of my life. 1 reason for this is I knew they wouldn’t approve and peoples’ approval meant way too much to me back then. I also didn’t want it to interfere with my job, college, etc., so only saw my friends away from work, school and those in my life who wouldn’t have wanted to know about it and also not understand. I met my friends through personal ads because I was very specific in what I wanted and from what I could see it was a convenient way. I also didn’t get on the Internet until a few years after the 1st time I started seeing others.
2) What problems have a high sex drive caused you as a woman?
My reply: I made some bad judgments during the 1st time I saw others. A lot of this was due to alcohol abuse and plain inexperience. However, even with abusing alcohol I always knew where I was and what I was doing. I honestly believed I wasn’t any good sexually without the alcohol to disinhibit me. I know now I started seeing others too early in my recovery based on this 1 area. My psychologist had told me to NEVER drink based on my family history alone. I was already an alcoholic when the murders happened. However, the amount of drinking I did grew greatly after the tragedy. Even with that, though, I was what you’d call high-functioning. Many alcoholics are for many years before starts to take the biggest toll on the body/mind/spirit. I hid from my doctor what I was doing with the alcohol. It was a huge relief to level with her once I got sober. It was a very hard transition to learn to function sexually without the alcohol, but I wouldn’t give up on it. I learned that I didn’t need it to function sexually and that I was OK without it and could function BETTER without it. I had quit seeing others when I got sober. A big reason is because of the concentration I needed to stay sober. The 1st 5 years of sobriety have the highest relapse rate and I didn’t want to risk that in any way. But, I’m proud that when I started a new friendship a few years later I was completely sober and did fine. I also felt more due to not being tranquilized from the alcohol. The sexual problems were fully fixed at this point and I know that even during my drinking years huge progress was made in this area plus others. I just should have waited a little longer before I started seeing others plus starting a relationship also. The other problem it’s caused is there’s always going to be people who don’t understand this and don’t want to make the effort to. I think this is very sad. However, I don’t let this change my arrangement and never will.
3) Have their ever been any jealous issues with your partner?
My reply: only 2 times. The 1st was when we were having a threesome with 1 of my men friends and I did something with him sexually that I wouldn’t do with my fiance at that time. I felt horrible about this later, but have learned from it, thank God, and it’s not happened again and never will. The other time was when my fiance made a friend of his own, but her goal in the long run was to split us up. She didn’t show this at 1st. I broke up with him over this for a short while. However, we did get back together and he broke off contact with her. She was an ex-girlfriend of his so we then made the rule that neither of us can have sex with an ex again. This is 1 rule we’d left out when we made our 1st set of rules, unfortunately. There haven’t been any problems since.
4) Have you ever felt yourself start to fall in love with any of your sex only friendships( that happened to a friend of mine who also had sex only relationships)?
My reply: No. I purposely limited the contact I had with my friends because of this risk. They would only come over to have sex and then leave. I would do the same when visiting them. 1 friend made me very nervous as he would call to talk a lot (and not just for phone sex). I was relieved when he quit calling me as if he hadn’t I was going to break off that part of our contact. My friends rarely stayed overnight (that was usually only if they lived far away or if I drove a long distance to their places) and I’d only go out on 1 date with them when meeting for the 1st time. That was also on purpose. I’m very thankful that none of them caused any problems like my fiance’s ex did.
5) Knowing that you can’t speak for all women, but based on your experience, do you find yourself being the exception among women, or the rule?
My reply: unfortunately, I’m an exception. I hate this and always will. I was outraged when I started to see others and found out what huge efforts they went through to get sex, how some would lie to and/or use them, etc. Learning about this made me resolve to keep my arrangement the rest of my life even more. But, I also say thank God for the exceptions in life! I had a wonderful friend in junior high and high school who also had friendships like I had. This is 1 reason I was her friend. I loved to hear about her experiences. I was also physically attraced to her, but was afraid to act on it. My wonderful friend was called evil and all other kinds of horrible names. I was also talked about. It was assumed that because I was her friend I was doing the same things. I have to laugh about this still as I was a virgin the whole time I knew her and was terrified of doing anything until my late teen years and even then I still had problems. I refused to break off with my friend and it cost me at least another “friend” who said she couldn’t be my friend because of it. Very sad. Unfortunately, I haven’t made any other friends like this. But, I know there’s others as 1 of the men I saw regularly was friends with 2 others like me during the time we saw each other. I also know this from other people I was in contact with during these years and also from reading about others, etc.
That was very interesting, thank you. I’m wired very differently as a person, and so I’m fascinated by your answers.
I’ve also been fascinated by sex from an early age as well, and my parents were both very promiscuous people, but my experiences have come at a high cost…but I understand now clearly that it was partially because of my choice of partners.
I don’t know that I can reconcile what’s going on in my head, my heart, and my body…especially after my education from Maggie. It doesn’t really seem possible, so I’m obviously going to have to adjust my attitude.
I have not ever in my life “just had sex with someone and left,” nor have I ever had an arrangement, so again it’s quite intriguing to hear your experiences.
Asehpe asked: Scorch’s questions are basically the same I had, with perhaps one added question:
– do you see yourself as ‘just like high-sex-drive men’ (or approaching them) in sexual behavior, or do you see differences between your behavior and high-sex-drive men that don’t depend on the intensity of your interest?
My reply: There were some years that I didn’t see anyone else. As I stated above, when I 1st got sober I didn’t. I did as little as possible during the 1st years of sobriety as it took so much to stay sober plus I needed/wanted to work the 12 steps in Alcoholics Anonymous. So, yes, there were times that my desire wasn’t high. The times my desire has gone down has had to do mostly with things happening and those have been mostly bad things and recovery work I wanted/needed to do. Another reason is I was also disillusioned with the people I met who had no manners, would lie, etc. I also met some wonderful people, though. They were just fewer in number. However, I wouldn’t let the bad experiences stop me and never will. Sometimes the men I saw regularly weren’t in the mood because of illness, tiredness and/or unusual stress, but this was a small percentage of the time.
If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. It’s liberating for me for me to talk about all this plus I know this can also educate and from what I’ve experienced and seen that’s very needed. I’m proud that the last time I saw anyone else that I was completely sober and now have a little over 11 years alcohol free. The sexual problems I had are fixed and all the work was worth it. I’ll be keeping our arrangement the rest of my life and I’ve had some wonderful experiences because of it.
The Human Scorch wrote: That was very interesting, thank you. I’m wired very differently as a person, and so I’m fascinated by your answers.
My reply: You’re welcome! My 1st psychologist told me I’m unusual among women in that I can have sex without getting emotionally involved. My preference has always been to see people on a regular basis though. I was blessed to have a few male friends I had this with. I had more 1 night stands than I EVER wanted to thanks to the 1’s who lied to me, etc. That was 1 of the horrible parts of the whole thing. However, I won’t ever let the bad stop me and stop my arrangement. I haven’t seen anyone but my fiance for over 7 years now and I’ve done that on purpose for several reasons. But, we’ve kept our arrangement and always will. I’ve been thinking of seeing people again for a while now, but if I do I’ll do some things differently.
The Human Scorch wrote: I’ve also been fascinated by sex from an early age as well, and my parents were both very promiscuous people, but my experiences have come at a high cost…but I understand now clearly that it was partially because of my choice of partners.
My reply: I know my interest came at least in part due from my abusive Mother who told me to never get married or have kids. What an evil thing to tell anyone! From what I remember she was pretty much against any form of sex. She did do 1 thing right, though, and that was to give me a set of books about pregnancy, etc., shortly before I started my teen years. Other than that, though, her track record was horrible. My interest was a form of defiance against her evil teachings, etc. That was as far as I took it for a lot of years until I got into counseling. My parents were very conservative in the sexual area. They were too conservative and that extreme can be as damaging as any other. When you say choice of partners, I can identify to a degree. I had very little experience with relationships before I met my fiance and the man I pursued before meeting him was a horrible choice to say the least. I’m thankful that didn’t work out. I’m glad that we did remain friends for a while though after the whole thing. When I did see others for sex only, I met at least a few horrible people. I got most tired of the lying from them. But, I did meet at least a few wonderful men and they also wanted something ongoing. It was wonderful to be able to call each other when we were in the mood and set up times to meet.
The Human Scorch wrote: I don’t know that I can reconcile what’s going on in my head, my heart, and my body…especially after my education from Maggie. It doesn’t really seem possible, so I’m obviously going to have to adjust my attitude.
My reply: I’ve done a lot of work on reconciling things in the sexual area. There’s 1 area, though, I don’t think will ever be resolved with it and that’s my religious beliefs. I’ve made progress in this area, but think I’m going to have conflicts, etc., with it the rest of my life. When you say adjust your attitude I’m curious what you mean by this?
The Human Scorch wrote: I have not ever in my life “just had sex with someone and left,” nor have I ever had an arrangement, so again it’s quite intriguing to hear your experiences.
My reply: I don’t want to give the impression that after we had sex I’d order people to leave. A lot of the time we’d talk a little while before parting. A few times I stayed overnight or they did due to driving distances. Also there were times they’d leave before I mentioned that I needed to get other things done, etc. Having an arrangement isn’t for everyone and I’d never say if people don’t have 1, they’re wrong, prudes, etc. I hate that mentality in the sexual area plus pretty much every other area. I’m very glad we’ve kept our arrangement and we have no plans to change it. I would advise anyone thinking of 1 to set your rules before acting on anything and if you’re only doing it to please your partner you’re going to have a lot of upset.
“The Human Scorch wrote: I don’t know that I can reconcile what’s going on in my head, my heart, and my body…especially after my education from Maggie. It doesn’t really seem possible, so I’m obviously going to have to adjust my attitude.
My reply: I’ve done a lot of work on reconciling things in the sexual area. There’s 1 area, though, I don’t think will ever be resolved with it and that’s my religious beliefs. I’ve made progress in this area, but think I’m going to have conflicts, etc., with it the rest of my life. When you say adjust your attitude I’m curious what you mean by this?”
…I meant that it’s clear to me now that what I was hoping for in a relationship was pretty much fantasy/naivete based. So I have to recognize that and deal with real world realities in terms of my expectations.
harm reduction??? I thought the theology was forgiveness.
Different principles. Forgiveness is granted to a penitent individual after a transgression, while harm reduction consists of arranging laws and procedures so that vices (such as infidelity and drug abuse) cause less damage than they otherwise might.
I’m certainly no theologian, nor historian, but I have always been Christian. I’ve never ever encountered harm reduction as a theologic principle. As a legislative idea, sure.
“Harm reduction” is a legal term rather than a philosophical one, but as I discussed in my column of November 26th it was the typical position of Catholic theologians until the Reformation, with its ensuing emphasis on strict Biblical interpretation which affected even the Catholics.
Dear jz, it’s great to see a fellow believer on here!