Excellent piece! I also think it's about time that we confront these ridiculous double standards.

Women can, and do, enjoy sex just as much as any man. The fact that we are somehow not 'supposed' to is absurd.

I touched upon this subject here:
http://www.theinformationparadox.com/2008/08/please-stop-worrying-about-my-vagina.html

Call me unnecessarily conservative, but I do think a better gender equality would be making casual sex less acceptable for men, not more acceptable for women. The quoted statement above, "It isn't that feminism has taught women to have sex like men," certainly goes towards acknowledging that male behavior shouldn't be considered the ideal baseline for gender equality.

I think caring about the people you sleep with is a good thing, casual sex makes it easier to make it a selfish endeavor that does not consider the emotional, or even physical, well-being of your partner.

Good read Jessica. I'm an advocate of casual sex, or a term I prefer "friendly sex" because I think the aforementioned term implies an attitude of less than safe sexual health practices but "friendly-sex" is more on the mark with how I perceive my own sexual relationships.

For me, and for most of the women I've been sexual with but not in a committed relationship it amounts to a streamlining of needs. I need friends, people to spend quality time with watching movies or eating dinner and I have sexual/intimacy needs too. What I don't need is to live with someone else or to have to set aside my own life and goals for someone else on-demand. It seems like whenever you're in a committed relationship that's exactly what is expected of you.

My female friends express it in much the same way. Women are almost always the one expected to give up their own personal and professional ambitions for their male partner or their viewed as "selfish", but us men are often viewed as "driven" when we behave in a selfish manner.

Well I'm a selfish person, but I'm also no hypocrite. I don't want anything I accomplish to be because someone who I'm supposed to care about had to subvert her own drive to accomplish.

Also: I sleep better alone 99% of the time, and since I snore I can't imagine my constant presence in a lovers bed would be a welcome regular addition.

I do believe that people can engage in damaging behavior in a sexual context, but the same can be said of anything. Hell, people exercise for unhealthy reasons too. We shouldn't stigmatize everyone who engages in friendly consensual conduct of any sort simply because some folks abuse themselves; instead we should look into the underlying reasons why some folks harm themselves.

Since when did "casual sex" become synonymous with "friends with benefits"? I thought casual sex meant going home with (or taking home) someone you just met and don't even know, having sex and then most likely never talking to them again.

If you feel that way about casual sex, Bondo, then you don't have to have casual sex. But don't try to shame me out of it.

Well, I don't have casual sex these days, what with the happy marriage and all, but in college? I had "real boyfriends" who took me out on dates and who were acknowledged by my peers as the other half of a couple. And then I had the guy I hooked up with whenever neither of us was dating someone. It was casual, it had no strings, and it didn't make us selfish.

Eight years after college, and we still exchange emails and facebook pictures. It was just casual sex, but it didn't hurt anyone.

"Some of you may already know that I'm working on a book about this culture of purity and chastity, and how it's America's obsession with virginity, not Girls Gone Wild and hooking up, that's fucking young women up."

Can we at least establish that there's a HUUUUGE difference between healthy, normal casual sex and Girls Gone Wild??

I am not a slut-shamer.. I think women (and everyone)should be free to enjoy their sexuality however they please.. as long as it's safe/healthy and it makes them happy. I don't think Girls Gone Wild represents this at all... it claims false empowerment.. when really, are these girls flashing their boobs for their own empowerment or for male attention (because they've been brainwashed to believe that that's what they should strive for)? I absolutely hate (and I'm not saying this is what you're saying at all, Jessica.. I'm just making a general statement) when people associate shit like GGW and paris hilton and stripper classes as FEMALE EMPOWERMENT and FEMINISM when the majority of the people doing those things are doing them for the wrong reasons.

You can't shame men out of sex, Bondo, short of finding a way to inflict a massive electrical shock every time we think about it.

...Which sounds like an excellent idea we need to start working on immediately.

For me, and for most of the women I've been sexual with but not in a committed relationship it amounts to a streamlining of needs. I need friends, people to spend quality time with watching movies or eating dinner and I have sexual/intimacy needs too. What I don't need is to live with someone else or to have to set aside my own life and goals for someone else on-demand. It seems like whenever you're in a committed relationship that's exactly what is expected of you.

That sums it up really well... thanks, Logrus!

In my case, I have a large group of friends, several incredibly close friends that I consider family, a fairly demanding career... and I enjoy being single. I like having my own goals, and my own plans, and not having to explain/justify/include anyone else. I also enjoy sex. Frankly, it's fun, I have a great time, and I enjoy it.

I don't sleep with strangers, because I do feel I have to know the people I'm with (trust issues... ) At the moment, though, all that means is that I'm sleeping with 6 different people. And we're just good friends who have fun together, and that's really all there is to it. Why on EARTH this would be bad for any of us is beyond me - we practice safe sex, I've got an IUD in addition to everything else, we're friends and trust each other... I honestly don't understand where on earth the problem is.

Cripes. I was hooking up before it was "hip," I guess.

Seriously, I had several years of hook-ups before I finally settled down with my husband. And I'm glad I did. I firmly believe in "test driving" before you start getting the state involved in your relationship. I mean, seriously, sex isn't the end all, be all of a relationship, but being sexually compatible does help.

My problem with casual sex is that it's yet another way for men to take advantage of women. Casual sex is another avenue for male perversity and anyway, it's the results of a culture that marginalizes women's sexuality just as much as chastity culture is. Casual sex just make it easier for men to cheat on women, to betray them, and to escape consequences for their actions. Ideally, we could eliminate sex altogether, but until then it seems best to give women as much control over the process as possible by forcing men into relationships if they want it. Better to keep the enemy where you can see them, you know?

The problem with casual sex is that it's not for ALL women. A few women can have casual sex and be fine with it while the others try it and then end up suffering from depression. All women are not alike and therefore the choice to abstain should be respected just as much as the choice to engage in casual sex. Everyone wants to point the finger at the naysayers but not at the people covering up the fact that a lot of women simply find it repulsive. According to Psychology Today Magazine:

http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070622-000002.html

"Studies demonstrate unequivocally that men are far more interested in short-term casual sex than women. In one now-classic study, 75 percent of undergraduate men approached by an attractive female stranger agreed to have sex with her; none of the women approached by an attractive male stranger did. Many men who would not date the stranger nonetheless agreed to have sex with her."

I think caring about the people you sleep with is a good thing, casual sex makes it easier to make it a selfish endeavor that does not consider the emotional, or even physical, well-being of your partner.

Well, the problem there isn't that they're not married or dating, the problem is that they're inconsiderate of their partners. It's not like there aren't committed partners who are selfish in bed.

Casual sex just make it easier for men to cheat on women, to betray them, and to escape consequences for their actions.

And again, the problem is that people are being cheated on or betrayed, not that they're not declaring themselves a couple.

LibertyBurning - Wouldn't you say that sex with strangers is an entirely different thing than casual sex? As some of the other posters have stated, they feel like they need to know the person, but that doesn't imply a romantic relationship.

I know that as a woman, I would personally be afraid to do anything that involved being alone with a male stranger. Does that mean that I have problems with casual sex with someone that I do already know? Maybe and maybe not.

Casual sex is another avenue for male perversity and anyway, it's the results of a culture that marginalizes women's sexuality just as much as chastity culture is.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here ("male perversity"? Too many shades of "sex is a dirty thing that men want and women don't, so why strive for enthusiastic consent").

I'll agree that a lot of our conception of (hetero) sex is quite androcentric and consequently marginalizes women (e.g., we tend to regard PIV intercourse and men's orgasms as more necessary to sex than other aspects). But I don't think that's any more intrinsic to casual sex than to other forms.

There seem to be two big pieces missing here - one is that casual sex can be an option, but it need not be the answer, for women. What happened to choice, after all? If someone chooses abstinence (YES, chooses, not has it forced on her - hey, there's an interesting take on the rape metaphor), good for her; if someone chooses casual sex, good for her. The choices have to come from women knowing themselves and making choices that are authentic to who they are.

The second piece missing from the discussion is religion. This is my ignorance, totally, but can anyone point me to an abstinence campaign that is not undergirded by religious beliefs? I happen to be a minister, I'm not on the abstinence train, but I know that any dialogue that examines "purity" (blech) or chastity will have to have some defense against the religion argument. And some better defense than "Oh your religion just sucks."

Which is why I stated right after that my feelings on heterosexual sex in general, which is to say, it's bad and needs to stop.

Okay, so we've got wedding rings, engagement rings, chastity rings. Not-casual rings, anyone? Zales? Tiffany? Penney?

I think women are less likely to participate in casual sex (defined as sex with total strangers) than men. I think that's because we're SMART. (1) if you just met a dude, how do you know he's not a serial killer; (2) how can you possibly gage sexual compatibility when you just met someone--this matters more to women than men and (3) for a lot of us it IS an emotional experience and needs to be shared with someone we care about or that cares about us.

I don't judge ANY woman who has sex with strangers from a moral perspective. I just hope to hell she's safe and I mean that in every sense of the word.

Friends with benefits is very different. Having had both a couple of one night stands and a couple of friends with benefit situations, I can tell you the former made me uncomfortable and a little freaked out and the latter made me feel good.

Beyond that, I certainly hope we don't equate Girls Gone Wild with examples of liberated women comfortable with their sexuality. GGW targets barely of age women, drugs them and gets them drunk and then has them perform sexual acts for the benefit of MEN (and creepy CRIMINALS at that). I rarely doubt that too many women after going on the GGW bus reflect on those moments as enlightening or empowering.

Friendly sex, casual sex, friends with benefits--these things ONLY work when the women participating in them are making informed choices that benefit them. I think Logrus summed it up perfectly. She says who, how and when and refuses to sacrifice her own needs for that of her partners "just" because she's the woman.

I don't know how we teach that but it's important that it be taught. I'm not opposed to saying to women that it's okay to have casual sex or friends with benefits--but I think it must always be emphasized that the arrangment be mutually beneficial to both parties.

open_sketch:

Lol. 9/10.

Which is why I stated right after that my feelings on heterosexual sex in general, which is to say, it's bad and needs to stop.

Okay. Good luck with that.

Thank you, Logrus, for being so supporting of other points of view. Just because someone's views are radically different than yours doesn't mean it's a joke, and I find it offensive you'd think so.

I have had lots of kinds of sex. Sex with someone I love, sex with someone I thought was hot, "friends with benefits" sex, been date raped (I refuse to call that sex), sex with someone I was extremely interested in but only in town for the weekend, sex with someone I was dating casually. I've had sex on the 1st date, sex on the 20th date, and sex with no dating whatsoever.

And ya know what? They're all different, but except for the rape, I'm not going to feel bad about any of them. They all served their purpose at the time, and I enjoyed them in different ways. We, as women and men, get to decide the who/what/when/where/why/how of sex, and shaming others does nothing positive.

Oh, and in case anyone was wondering, I mentioned the date rape because drunken casual sex (that both parents consent to) is NOT date rape, and vice versa. Many people seem to have trouble with this concept.

open_sketch: You mean that suggesting that "all heterosexual sex needs to stop" was a serious suggestion?

Well, I mean how do you expect someone to take you seriously when you say that, but don't offer up a reason why you single out het sex, a method for sustaining the population, etc?

I respect your right to say crazy shit, but you have to respect my right to assume that you're actually not a crazy person and are just making a clever joke. This is the internet, I can't actually see the tinfoil hat.

Come on, you are part of a sketch comedy group, right? I mean it makes sense with the handle that you have. Am I breaking the fourth wall here by asking that?

No, listen. I know we need to sustain the population, and I single out hetrosexual sex for a reason, which is I don't think that men and women should interact unless they need to, because, frankly, my gender consists mostly of scumbags and women would be a lot better off without us! Reproducing without sex is not only possible, but we've been doing it for a while now. I'm just of the opinion that the less interactions men and women have with each other, the better off we'll all be.

And yes, I am insane. I have no qualms about it, I don't care, whatever, because my world makes sense to me. You are talking to a person who hopes to die in a massive revolution that involves complete gendercide some day. Who fantasizes about a better world that exists because everyone like me is dead. I know that's way outside human norms, but thats who I am, and I've long accepted it.

I do see Bondo's point. There's nothing wrong with casual sex or sex outside of relationships, but I took his/her post to mean that there often isn't enough communication between sexual partners. I think this is why we not only need comprehensive sex ed, but a stronger infusion of how to handle sex in a relationship and/or in a casual "hook-up" situation. Safer sex practices, how to respect your partner, how to recognize rape tactics, an examination of societal gender roles, etc are all topics that should be part of sex ed.

open_sketch: Ok, so I won't assume you're telling a joke but will, instead, go along with your own statement that you're insane.

However insanity of the type you profess to have is still pretty funny. So now I'm laughing for an entirely different reason, but it's an accurate reason so I hope you're cool with that.

But just in case you're really in a sketch comedy group or this is some kind of avant garde new form of literary art, I called it. You beautiful crazy bastard, you. Don't ever let anyone tr and medicate you, man, the world needs more crazy in it.

open-sketch:

I gotta say, as a person who hopes for revolution of a different sort, I couldn't disagree with you more. Men are not the problem, our culture/socialization/capitalism (yeah, the Marxist is blaming capitalism) are the problem.

I know many, many, many men who make my life a hell of a lot better, and one that makes my life just beautiful and wonderful. And these men are also working to make lives better for all of us. Also, I know a lot of women who are making women's lives a lot worse. Let's focus on cutting out the crap in our culture, not cutting out men all together...

Is it really worth trying to work with the few men that are good considered how many men aren't? There are almost definitely more rapists than there are pro-feminist males, nevermind the garden-variety "average" sexist, ignorant males.

To me, open_sketch, yes, it is worth "trying" to work with those men, who are as feminist as I am.

But then again, it appears we view the root of the problem very differently. If I thought men were the problem, maybe I'd agree with you. Instead, I've located the source of the problem elsewhere, and I am happy to have male AND female comrades to fight alongside me.

"This is the internet, I can't actually see the tinfoil hat."

this gets the gold star for best comment of the day.

anyway, great piece by clark-flory and great additional commentary by jessica. i could not agree more. it's just a shame to me that the media latches onto all this fearmongering about "hookups" and the like, presumably because sex sells and as a result, i guess some people really see some new, huge looming crisis in my generation. all i can hope is that as time goes by and we age, at some point MOST people will have had a fairly normal adult period of exercising sexual freedom and won't act like this is a big deal.

@ Aerin - Yes, the abstinence only education is completely supported by the religious right. Unfortunately they have far too much power with regard to the American government and have been trying to weasel their beliefs into leglislation for quite some time now.

The steretypes and double standards are throwbacks from a time when religion dominated and dictated what the culture did. As women become more independent and sexually unrepressed the less that religious institutions have a hold on them. They need to keep women afraid of their sexuality.

That being said - while I don't personally partake in casual sex I see nothing wrong with it. Do what you will as long as it's between informed, consensual adults.

I've never had casual sex, but I don't see anything wrong with it at all.
Plenty of married men (and women) are inconsiderate and/or cruel towards their partners; a wedding ring can't fix that. Nobody here is advocating forcing people to have casual sex. If it's not for some people, then it's not for them and they don't have to do it.

I think that a lot of the pro-abstinence types think that having sex outside of marriage makes an individual physically and emotionally vulnerable and that sharing such a powerful experience with someone that you're not committed to for life can lead to unnecessary heartache.

I think that there's a tendency in feminist circles to demonize abstinence advocates which I find unfortunate. I think a lot of abstinence advocates do want to control women's bodies but a lot of them also genuinely care about the people they counsel and just want them to stay happy and healthy. I say this as someone who went to Catholic schools and while I don't agree with everyone there, I feel confident saying that for the most part the teachers had our best interests at heart.

That being said, when I think back to the relationships I've been in, I think the person who hurt me the most was one boyfriend who I did not have sex with so I don't agree with the theory that people with whom you have sex can hurt you more than people with whom you do not have sex.

Hope that makes sense.

Why is it the wage gap is stagnant, but women are catching up to men in alcoholism, promiscuity, and lowered life expectancy?

I think it's important to protect your right to sluthood (male or female - and I know plenty of men I'd sooner call "sluts" than "studs") but only in the same way I'd protect my right to suicide or any other idiotic activity. I don't think exploiting your body for pleasure makes men or women any happier, but as a matter of personal autonomy, you should certainly have the option.

And finally, if we took all the shame out of sex, nobody would feel dirty doing it, and what would be the fun in that?

I think there is a HUGE difference between casual sex and sex before marriage in a committed relationship. Among my friends, I have seen that sporadic relationships (a la friends with benefits) and random hookups (two examples of casual sex) have definitely left my friends feeling much more vulnerable and unhappy than when they were in committed relationships. It is definitely not the same as "test-driving" in a committed relationship, where each partner is completely involved. There is also no reason to see casual sex as a triumph for feminists.

SarahMC, I officially love you! I have been trying for YEARS to figure out how to explain what you put into a few simple words; "a wedding ring can't fix that." Thank you! That sums up 80% of my philosophy on life- just because you're MARRIED (which is just a piece of PAPER) doesn't mean you're committed, doesn't mean your faithful, doesn't mean you love the person, doesn't mean you take care of them. It ought to - but it doesn't always. This is what I try to explain to the abstinence folk.
Wow. That made my day :-)

Jamie

Now I feel accomplished for the day, RevlutionarilySpeaking!
I say it all the time.
Getting married won't save you from heartache (contrary to what the ab-only folks are peddling).
It won't protect you from pain. It's not some bubble that keeps you safe from drama and deception.
Heartbreak is part of the human experience, anyway. And it happens to people whether there's sex involved or not. Life is not meant to be a sterile straight line.
Getting married because you want to have sex without guilt is a recipe for disaster.

"I don't think exploiting your body for pleasure makes men or women any happier, but as a matter of personal autonomy, you should certainly have the option."

Why does having sex have to have anything to do with exploiting anything? Why is pleasure exploiting? I like sex. I've had casual sex -- with strangers, with friends -- and ... I didn't feel exploited. It was my choice. I had fun. I don't regret it.

Marcus: "I don't think exploiting your body for pleasure makes men or women any happier"

The only reason it wouldn't is if you were carrying the burden of societal guilt over pleasure or you did it for the wrong reasons (like folks who really want a relationship, but settle for sex instead).

Otherwise using your body for pleasure is inherently going to produce happiness. Pleasure being equivocal to happiness.

If you like a good read (who dosen't) and dig philosophy you might want to read up on hedonism and it's original progenitors and advocates (Socrates, John Stuart Mill, and many others) and epicureanism which equate pleasure and summum bonum (highest good).

I second Logrus and marilove.

I would also add that I had plenty of casual sex of all types back in the day (before I met Mr. ff), and it was very pleasurable and made me very happy.

What did make me miserable, unhappy, vulnerable, insecure, etc. was having "committed" relationships with the wrong person (in and out of marriage).

I thought I'd add a more personal note. In college, I broke up with a long-term boyfriend and started sleeping with a friend of mine. We'd known each other a few years and I'd always thought he was cute. We both knew there was 0% chance of a serious relationship between us.

It was very empowering. We used to sing and laugh while we made love. I finally found the courage to touch myself during intercourse, to climb on top and throw my hair back and really enjoy myself, and -- this is the best part -- he would compliment me for doing so!

The very casual nature of the sex allowed us to be playful and unserious. I've never recaptured that, or rarely, even with my husband. I think I'd be a poorer person sexually without those experiences.

Nimue "We used to sing and laugh while we made love"

It was "Muskrat Love", wasn't it?

"And now he's ticklin' her fancy
Rubbin' her toes
Muzzle to muzzle, now anything goes
As they wriggle, and Sue starts to giggle"

SarahMC, Logrus, ff, marilove, RevolutionarilySpeaking... all y'all...

Right. On.

Logrus, sweet "Muskrat Love" reference! Well done!

nilbog: The Captain and Tennille are my Barry White. If I'm on a date with you and you hear "Love Will Keep Us Together", I'm getting ready to make my move; a move that usually begins with the Hustle.

That's right, the ladies dig my Hustle skills.

"it seems best to give women as much control over the process as possible by forcing men into relationships if they want it. Better to keep the enemy where you can see them, you know?"

Call me crazy, open_sketch, but I don't see men as the enemy and I don't want to 'force' anyone into a relationship with me. Ever.

“The problem with casual sex is that it's not for ALL women. All women are not alike and therefore the choice to abstain should be respected just as much as the choice to engage in casual sex.”

I agree. I never know where I fit into these talks. I only have sex (and I love it!) within committed relationships. I haven’t had a deep relationship with someone in a number of years and also choose to abstain from sex when not in a relationship. Why? The casual thing/friends with benefits/etc, or whatever term you want to apply to it, doesn’t work for me and never will. Can’t do it. Never could and never will. I don’t look down on people who can participate in casual sex and there are times that I envy them and wish I could just hook up with someone for a few hours of fun. But because of my past experiences and trust issues from abuse and DV I choose to abstain (and enjoy masturbation) because I don’t trust people who I’ve just met and I never will. It gets old to hear jokes about “Wow, you haven’t been laid in months?” Well, try years and I’m okay with that.

So, where do I, as a person who chooses to abstain between relationships, fit into these conversations? Sometimes *I* feel like the freak for not having sex. I think that we need to encourage women that no matter our choices, casual sex or choosing to abstain or hooking up with friends, is okay as long as long as it makes us happy.

"What did make me miserable, unhappy, vulnerable, insecure, etc. was having "committed" relationships with the wrong person (in and out of marriage)."

Yes, this!!! I have had plenty of casual sex. I've never felt worse than I did with my first serious boyfriend, who mentally abused me and ... well, to put it bluntly, raped me on a regular basis (by breaking me down until I gave up and had sex with him, or to take drugs I did not want to take). It was a committed, long-term relationship and a horrible time in my life. (Though it totally made me stronger, and honestly I am glad for the experience in the sense that I became a very strong, independant woman after that. No regrets, I say!)

The BEST I've ever felt, at least when it comes to sex and relationships, was when I was having "friends with benefits" sex with an old friend of mine. It was awesome, and fun, and I was happy. I certainly was NOT exploiting myself or him.

Xana, I've only had sex with ONE person, and I've been dating him for about six years now. I wouldn't even know how to go about having casual sex(or dating!) if we broke up. But I know that I abhor sexual double-standards, and that there is nothing objectively wrong with casual sex as an act. Just because I'm not having that type of sex right now doesn't mean I don't recognize it as one of the many valid choices a person can make with respect to her/his body.

i'm over here concurrin' w/ puckalish, sarahmc, logrus, et al. casual sex can be lotsa fun! as i have been repeatedly quoted to say, "i'm a woman, and i have NEEDS, damnit!" and i think it would be far more manipulative and emotionally dishonest to get into a relationship with someone not because i'm really into them, but because i really just want to get laid. i've also been married and am currently in a serious relationship, and i can also attest that sex in those scenarios has its own different kinds of rewards.

self-knowledge is, in my mind, the key to happiness in all of these situations; to know exactly what you want and to be honest with your partners, integrous and scrupulous in all your affairs (and i don't mean affairs of the cheating sort!) is of the utmost importance, not just for sexual happiness and fulfillment, but in all other arenas of our relations.

"But I know that I abhor sexual double-standards, and that there is nothing objectively wrong with casual sex as an act. Just because I'm not having that type of sex right now doesn't mean I don't recognize it as one of the many valid choices a person can make with respect to her/his body."

I do as well and I'm not implying that what doesn't work for me doesn't work for someone else. I'm just trying to say that sometimes it's hard to know where to fit into conversations where I feel I lack experience or where I don't know how to contribute to fight the double standards. Does that make sense?

I mean, I hear enough shit about how us survivers of abuse and DV must have real issues with sex and blah blah. When in reality I've always been this sort of person and that DV just made it harder to give up a level of control and to trust someone enough to have sex with them.

Perhaps I'm not making any kind of sense but...just throwing it out there.

As a "purity pusher" (best-selling author who covers the downsides to the hook-up/fwb trend), I am confused by your statement:

"I'd just add (because it's all I'm thinking about these days!) that there are two things that really, really get to me about the chastity crap.* The first is how it's assumed that women don't like sex, but that we're just using it to get what we really want--husbands and stability. Women liking sex never enters the equation with purity-pushers; if we're having pre-marital sex we're either self-hating or fooling ourselves. And if we do actually enjoy sex (the horror!), then we're simply bad people--sluts and whores the lot of us! And that's the second thing that bugs me--how these books put a moral value on sex, specifically the sex that women have. They've taken the joy out of sex, and commodified it (I'm "saving" it! I'm "worth" the wait!) more than any Girls Gone Wild commercial ever could."

Where in the world are you getting your information? We say that "women don't like sex?" Seriously? Or if they have it, they are "self-hating?" Funny, I've never said either one of those faulty statements.

I have an organization that reaches a quarter of a million teen girls annually and there is no arguing the fact that many are experiencing heartache and emptiness over past hook-ups. Why is it so hard for you to accept (and respect) that some women don't enjoy recreational sex and want to save it for marriage?

And as for "America's obsession with virginity," it seems to me that folks like you are the ones obsessing over purity balls, abstinence campaigns, and anyone for that matter who doesn't agree with your position. (See your quote above: "It's all I'm thinking about these days.") Perhaps, you should look deeper and ask yourself why it bothers you so much. Your "book" is based on faulty assumptions, so you might want to go back to the drawing board on your hypothesis.

For the record, I bought into the culture's "hook-up sex is grand" message only to emerge empty and confused, in spite of the fact that people like you said it should be "empowering." I wrestled with intense guilt over an abortion in my teen years, even though I was staunchly pro-choice at the time. And there are countless other women just like me. Until you can acknowledge that fact, you are hardly qualified to address the topic.

anon:

I'm sorry that "hook-up sex" didn't work for you, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work for a lot of women. You can't acknowledge that? Oh, I forgot...women are all alike, aren't we? Keep pushing that purity agenda and we'll keep pushing back.

Purity. Probably one of the dirtiest words in the English lexicon in my opinion.

anon, so many of them are experiencing heartache over past hookups? i can buy that, absolutely. but there's just as many, if not more, who AREN'T. i have no doubt that with something as emotionally complex as sex, there are people that regret certain choices later on. but that also includes those people who might regret abstaining later on for the lack of breadth of experience it can bring.

maybe, rather than pushing "purity", you should help those oh-so-distraught young women examine their motives for engaging in the aforementioned hookup, and move on from there. you know, if they had sex because they wanted to please/keep a boyfriend, or were showing off for a friend, or what have you.

this all underscores my previous point: SELF-KNOWLEDGE IS THE KEY. if some women want to remain abstinent, that is a completely valid choice that merits zero ridicule. but everyone deserves the right to grow from an adolescent into a sexual being in an environment free of peer judgment, one that emphasizes honesty and respect and recognizes the validity of sexual impulses.

i know myself, i know i'm not happy abstaining for an extended period of time, and i know how to protect my health as well as my emotions. i have had both physically and emotionally satisfying sex in an variety of types of relationships. want me to come talk to your little group?

somehow, i think you're one of those people for whom to hear anything other than your party line will make your head explode.

Wow... and there was me thinking that the point of this post wasn't to say that there is anything wrong with choosing chastity, but that the assumption that chastity is somehow morally superior and the "correct" way to behave is the real issue.

The whole thing about women not REALLY liking sex isn't about anyone explicitly stating it (although I am sure people do) but about the language used in many abstinence-only works. My school in the UK didn't teach abstinence until marriage or anything like that, but the language used to discuss sex with the girls and boys was very different. Girls were always told "don't let him pressure you into it" and "if he really loves you he will wait", and the vast majority of any talk about sex focussed on why you shouldn't let HIM do it. All good points individually, but at no point was there any discussion of a girl's own desire for sex. The idea that any of the girls might THEMSELVES want to have sex never came into the matter. In contrast, the boys were always being taught that "when you have sex, wear a condom" as if their own desires were a given.

And think of what is implied by language such as "giving it up". Not to mention WRT purity balls; the abstinence side of the idea is not a problem. If a woman or girl chooses to wait for marriage that is her business and her choice, but purity balls don't treat it as HER choice, but her father's choice. As if he owns her. It harkens back to the days when a man would give someone permission to marry his daughter... who may never have met the man or be interested in him... and who got to choose which person would get to "take" her virginity. It's where the whole thing of being walked down the aisle came from. The ownership of the woman is passed from father to husband. And that is icky. My vagina and it's activity-level is none of my dad's business.

okay, where are all these brilliant folks coming from? Xana, that's so rich:

Purity. Probably one of the dirtiest words in the English lexicon in my opinion.

i almost choked on my soy and spinach.

i guess i need to read feministing more, so i can pick up on more of these gems.

I find it troubling that everyone is so willing to conflate truly nutty evangelicals, etc. who perform creepy "purity balls" and write bizarre books about "Eve's mindset" with the intelligent people who argue for chastity from a) personal experience, b) a medical studies and c) solid philosophical and theological arguments. The third of these, in particular JPII's "Theology of the Body," does anything but take the joy out of sex; he makes sex truly beautiful and poetic. While there is a lot of bs out there on the chastity side (which, if you can't already tell, would be the side I claim as my own), there is a lot of bs on the other side as well. See Jezebel's Moe and Tracie's rape apologetics for an example.

Xana, I hope you don't feel like you don't fit into these discussions! It does seem a little lopsided when everyone is trying to defend casual sex but I think it would be sad if we couldn't have everyone's perspective.

I've had both good and bad experiences with casual sex. One guy made me feel so awful about myself, I couldn't even masturbate for 8 months afterwards. I had to remind myself that I was a subject, not an object, before I could have a healthy sexual life again.

But one of my best sexual experiences was one of the most casual; I felt like I had complete control of the situation and complete freedom at the same time. He made me feel sexy as hell, we talked very blatantly about STDs and pregnancy beforehand, and yet I don't think either of us felt any obligation to the other besides the most important obligation of a sexual partner: being respectful.

theogirl: I appreciate where you're coming from and I think you have a valid point. There is a difference between the whacko purity people and people who just feel it's a good idea, but are not on some crusade.

But two things:

You, yourself, are an example of how all of the obvious proponents and groups that advocate chastity are coming from a theological bent. Now I'm not arguing causation, but the correlation is suspicious to a few of us. Maybe it isn't the sex that is the problem, but the mind-set and conditioning that post-Abrahamian theology forces on to men and women associating sex and the body with sin and guilt? Perhaps you could consider that it is theology that makes the act unpleasant for some and reinforces the negative aspects? We live in a very Judeo-Christian society, so much so that even people who are atheists carry the burdens of a morality based on a dogma we don't even subscribe to.

Secondly: I'm all up for sex and romantic advice. You could say that I'm saving the most important thing I have to offer a partner, my heart, for my one true love. But I will never take advice on sex from a Pope, at least not a pope later than Alexander VI.

/note that I didn't "go there".

Logrus,

That is fair enough. I, obviously, am strongly influenced by my religious beliefs. But then again, I am a convert to faith, and my conversion to chastity, which happened first, was a big part of that. So for me, the causation runs in reverse.

Nevertheless, I understand that it doesn't make sense for a non-Christian to base their actions of Christian ideas. So, without bringing up God at all, here are two excerpts from essays I have written that try to make sense of the whole "gift" thing:

1) Chastity is sex as it is meant to be: sex that is directed toward much more than gratifying our immediate physical desires. As anyone who has kissed both somebody they cared nothing for and somebody they loved will acknowledge, sexual acts (even kissing!) are far more pleasing when physical pleasure is not, in fact, the principal goal. Ironically, when the primary purpose of sex is to physically symbolize love that has already been given, pleasure becomes more complete. How much more must this be true when the gift of love has been given irrevocably in marriage? Sex belongs in marriage because it is the physical symbol of marriage just as a handshake is the physical symbol of greeting and laughter is the physical symbol of joy. Just as faked laughter deceives, sex outside of marriage is, in the words of author Dawn Eden, “lying with your body.” Sex is the most intimate physical gift that can be given, and if it is not given alongside the emotional and practical union of two lives that is found in marriage, it is misplaced and deceptive.

2)From a handshake to a hug to sexual intercourse, our bodies are the most basic tools we have to express our emotions. These physical encounters in turn sustain, deepen and change our emotions. We cannot physically give ourselves to another person in the most intimate way possible, through sexual intercourse, without doing something to our emotions, even if only for the duration of the activity. Even if the effect is attributed simply to the release of a mixture of hormones, it is undeniable. Sexual infidelity, including premarital sex, necessarily damages the romantic relationship on a deep level because it tears the fabric of our emotional attachment, whether we will it to do so or not.

All of this applies to men and women alike; the responsibility falls equally on both, since both are subject to the same appetites. Maybe sex is kind of like Thanksgiving dinner, which tastes so much better if you don't snack all day long.

Logrus,

That is fair enough. I, obviously, am strongly influenced by my religious beliefs. But then again, I am a convert to faith, and my conversion to chastity, which happened first, was a big part of that. So for me, the causation runs in reverse.

Nevertheless, I understand that it doesn't make sense for a non-Christian to base their actions of Christian ideas. So, without bringing up God at all, here are two excerpts from essays I have written that try to make sense of the whole "gift" thing:

1) Chastity is sex as it is meant to be: sex that is directed toward much more than gratifying our immediate physical desires. As anyone who has kissed both somebody they cared nothing for and somebody they loved will acknowledge, sexual acts (even kissing!) are far more pleasing when physical pleasure is not, in fact, the principal goal. Ironically, when the primary purpose of sex is to physically symbolize love that has already been given, pleasure becomes more complete. How much more must this be true when the gift of love has been given irrevocably in marriage? Sex belongs in marriage because it is the physical symbol of marriage just as a handshake is the physical symbol of greeting and laughter is the physical symbol of joy. Just as faked laughter deceives, sex outside of marriage is lying with your body. Sex is the most intimate physical gift that can be given, and if it is not given alongside the emotional and practical union of two lives that is found in marriage, it is misplaced and deceptive.

2)From a handshake to a hug to sexual intercourse, our bodies are the most basic tools we have to express our emotions. These physical encounters in turn sustain, deepen and change our emotions. We cannot physically give ourselves to another person in the most intimate way possible, through sexual intercourse, without doing something to our emotions, even if only for the duration of the activity. Even if the effect is attributed simply to the release of a mixture of hormones, it is undeniable. Sexual infidelity, including premarital sex, necessarily damages the romantic relationship on a deep level because it tears the fabric of our emotional attachment, whether we will it to do so or not.

All of this applies to men and women alike; the responsibility falls equally on both, since both are subject to the same appetites. Maybe sex is kind of like Thanksgiving dinner, which tastes so much better if you don't snack all day long.

Yeah. Why do those purity-ball people have do be so darn Protestant about it? Talk about gauche.

As for your "not bringing up God" explanation, it still does - it just moves it from the explicit to the implicit. ("Meant to be" by whom?)

theogirl: I think it's completely cool for you to feel that way about chastity, but I think it's important to understand that it's unlikely that your feelings about chastity were not influenced by theology just because you had them pre-conversion. Just like living in a patriarchal society, the forces of the patriarchy and always there influencing the language, the way we express opinions, how we feel about things, etc. This is the same with our Judeo-Christian nation. Every aspect of our societal structure that you can name is based on or influenced by the theological disposition of our founders.

Now on to a point by point:

1) Chastity is sex as it is meant to be: sex that is directed toward much more than gratifying our immediate physical desires.

What is this opinion based on? I'm not saying that love does not enhance sex, but being in love can also be independant from sex. Tying them together as though they were needed to form a complete picture seems to be the inevitable outcome of this line of reasoning, is that your intent? Do you wish to say that love without sex is less good than love with sex?

Meanwhile allowing sex to be a good of it's own sort, which can be complimented by, but not demanding of, love seems like a more reasonable approach.

As anyone who has kissed both somebody they cared nothing for and somebody they loved will acknowledge, sexual acts (even kissing!) are far more pleasing when physical pleasure is not, in fact, the principal goal.

Sure, but as a wise man once said: Shit ice-cream is still ice cream. In other words: Something does not have to be the best to be good.

Ironically, when the primary purpose of sex is to physically symbolize love that has already been given, pleasure becomes more complete. How much more must this be true when the gift of love has been given irrevocably in marriage? Sex belongs in marriage because it is the physical symbol of marriage just as a handshake is the physical symbol of greeting and laughter is the physical symbol of joy.

Marriage does not predate sex. As numerous people here have stated marriage does not guarantee love and respect, it should be a symbol of it but it isn't always (or even often, according to many). Meanwhile anyone can love, free of ceremony.

Just as faked laughter deceives, sex outside of marriage is lying with your body.

Not to be vulgar, but barring the use of drugs: An erect penis or a moist and engorged vulva seldom lie. Meanwhile people lie in marriage a LOT, and they sure as hell lie about love (often to get sex).

Sex is the most intimate physical gift that can be given, and if it is not given alongside the emotional and practical union of two lives that is found in marriage, it is misplaced and deceptive.

No, if someone says "I like being single, but I like your company and I bet we could have great sex. How do you feel about that?" that's not a lie (well, unless they know they are shitty lovers). People who are open to friendly sex are probably a lot less likely to lie than someone who feels pressure to conform to a Christian concept of sexual morality (just look at how many prominent people of faith can't stick to it and then tell lie upon lie trying to cover it up).

Theodore Roosevelt had a term he liked to use: "Nature Faker". He used it to describe people who imbued nature with properties that did not truly exist within nature, they did this to add an air of romance or mysticism to nature. Roosevelt believed that to do this was to ultimately detract from the real beauty and majesty of nature. Sex is part of nature, it does not need to be mystified or enhanced through the implanting of traits that are not really present.

"shit ice cream is still ice cream." LMMFAO.
logrus, you crack me up.

though i always put it this way:
"sex is like pizza. even when it's bad, it's still pretty good."

baddesignhurts:

I considered the pizza/sex saying but I thought it would be potentially a source for unwanted contention to imply that "bad sex" was somehow good because someone might decide that I was talking about rape, etc.

Also trying to distance the argument from actual sex, since that's the topic.

And the shit ice-cream bit always makes me laugh, but I'm a huge fan of toilet humor.

haha well i've always disagreed with the "sex is like pizza" line because frankly no, sometimes it's actually just BAD. as in, painful, uncomfortable, boring, etc. and i'd rather have spent that time doing something else.

anyway, what lorgus said is spot-on. how people feel about sex is incredibly complex and individualized and if you accept that not everyone accepts a particular view of sex as handed down from on high by some supernatural authority, then you kind of have to accept their ability to define what sex means for themselves. and god knows plenty of people have determined for themselves that sex and love mustn't always go together. in fact, some people might not EVER view sex as something meaningful or magical or spiritual or whatever and as odd as that may sound, there's nothing inherently WRONG with that--it doesn't hurt anyone as long as they're honest about it.

rileystclair: So a good metaphor would be

"Bad sex is like Dominoes pizza"

or

"Good sex is a lot pike pizza, salty and greasy with a lot of sauce and it usually makes you gassy afterwards"

Xana, I completely understand your viewpoint. As I said, I've only had sex with one person, within a relationship. But I think you did really well in your reply to anon!

And as far as anon's comment goes, I'm not even going to address that ish. It's full of strawfeminists, projection and dishonesty.

Theogirl:

Chastity is sex as it is meant to be: sex that is directed toward much more than gratifying our immediate physical desires.

Sex as *who* means it to be, hmm?

As anyone who has kissed both somebody they cared nothing for and somebody they loved will acknowledge, sexual acts (even kissing!) are far more pleasing when physical pleasure is not, in fact, the principal goal.

What makes you think "anyone" who's done those things would agree with you? Why must sex be "The Best Ever" in order to be acceptable?

Sex belongs in marriage because it is the physical symbol of marriage just as a handshake is the physical symbol of greeting and laughter is the physical symbol of joy. Just as faked laughter deceives, sex outside of marriage is lying with your body.

Who says it's the physical symbol of marriage? What advice (non-religious, of course!) would you give to gays and lesbians who can't get married?

Sex is the most intimate physical gift that can be given, and if it is not given alongside the emotional and practical union of two lives that is found in marriage, it is misplaced and deceptive.

See, I don't view sex as a commodity that one person gives to another person - as most abstinence-only and purity pushers do (of course, it's usually framed as a gift the woman gives the man).

From a handshake to a hug to sexual intercourse, our bodies are the most basic tools we have to express our emotions. These physical encounters in turn sustain, deepen and change our emotions. We cannot physically give ourselves to another person in the most intimate way possible, through sexual intercourse, without doing something to our emotions, even if only for the duration of the activity. Even if the effect is attributed simply to the release of a mixture of hormones, it is undeniable. Sexual infidelity, including premarital sex, necessarily damages the romantic relationship on a deep level because it tears the fabric of our emotional attachment, whether we will it to do so or not.

This is not based on factual evidence. Sexual activity is damaging, unless you're doing it with someone who put a wedding ring on your finger? This is religious dogma, whether you admit to it or not.

I think casual sex leads to objectification. Not to be crude but, in fact, that's the point...So women objectifying men for once, maybe turnabout is fair play.

The chastity industry's audience, on the other hand, is primarily children...though informed by their religious beliefs they're probably against pre-marital sex generally. Call me a prude, but I don't think that teens having less sex is a bad thing. Out-of-wedlock births in Detroit exceed 80% & looking at the socio-economic stats no one can argue that's a good thing.

"Maybe sex is kind of like Thanksgiving dinner, which tastes so much better if you don't snack all day long."

My husband and I were just laughing at this idea. We love to pick at the turkey, taste the mashed potatoes, and even have appetizers while we're waiting for the big meal. It doesn't spoil our appetites because we know our own limits, and I think it actually allows us to eat more because I've heard (and it seems to hold out from experience) that the stomach shrinks when you get really hungry. But we also both had premarital sex lives that we see as necessary precursors to our current ridiculous happiness.

All this "food=sex" talk is sure making me hungry and horny!

I do feel a little weird taking part in this discussion...I'm 21 and have never had any sort of sexual contact. I do attributed it largely to anxiety issues, but I have met very few people I was attracted to enough to have sex, and in those cases, things didn't work out. Casual sex just isn't for me.

That said, masturbation has been a lifesaver. I feel like I will go into a relationship with more confidence and more comfortable with my body that way.

I should add that the first bite of anything delicious that you haven't had in a very long time is always good. That doesn't mean it's the best of everything that you've ever eaten or that you should never eat anything else.

The food = sex comparison is inappropriate for a couple reasons.
Food is a scarce resource. It's a commodity. Sex is not. It's an activity.
Food is literally a requirement for an individual's survival. If you stop eating, eventually you will starve and die. Sex isn't like that. At the same time, it's possible to spoil one's appetite with food. If you eat too much, you will become full or even uncomfortably stuffed. You can't "spoil" your appetite for sex by having too much sex. Some people are sex addicts, of course, but that's something different.

(First post, yay!)

I, too am not a person who has ever engaged in any casual encounters. The worst part about casual sex from my perspective is that there isn't really a test to make sure it's right for you or not. It's an intuition or gut thing. Part of me knows that if I were to try it, I would be much too nervous about wrecking a friendship, the risks (babies, STI's) outweighing the benefits (good sex), and other things. And yet, the other part of me knows that I would be nervous about anything I tried for the first time, and I could possibly get used to it.

But on top of that, I know that the very beliefs of mine that I am challenging right now are the old fashioned ones instilled in me (sex is always super-dangerous, promiscuity is always emotionally damaging, girls who sleep around are sluts, etc.). So I don't even know what to think anymore.

All I know is that the practice of casual sex makes me feel like a freak for wanting to intimately love and trust a person if I want to sleep with them. Nothing against the people who do it, though, many of them are very happy :)

sly: I agree with you that teens having less sex probably isn't a bad thing. The problem is that the kids that are indeed to focus of this kind of "education" will grow into adults, if they're anything like normal adults they will be sexual in some fashion.

If we use a theology based message that contains the subtext "sex is harmful/sinful/etc" then we're training people to feel bad about their natural desires once they reach adulthood. This will mean more generations who either engage in shame-sex or who need to painfully be re-educated.

I know this because I'm the product of this kind of training, not just in regards to sex but in regards to all kinds of things that most people do, but most people have also been trained to feel bad about doing.

Logrus,

I think you have misunderstood what I meant about lying. I didn't mean that one can't be physically aroused or derive pleasure from extramarital sex. I wouldn't have kept having it for three years if that was the case!

What I meant was, when two people are having sex they are, obviously, as physically close as they can possibly be. They grope each other, hold on to each other tightly, etc. Every motion of the body says: I want you closer to me, I want to be one with you. But the emotions aren't mirroring these sentiments.

Basically, what I am saying is that the body and the spirit/mind/emotions work best when they work together and are in synch. To put such a gulf between the body and the emotions denies that, as humans, we are both consciousness and body in unity. And denying what we are is not good for us.

On a side note: the food metaphors really aren't so great. But hey, no metaphor is perfect.

While I certainly have no problem agreeing with the chastity part of Jessica's statement, I'm not sure I agree with the article's 'endorsement' of casual sex/hookup culture. I read Sex and the Soul, and Freitas was pretty clear about not idealizing the evangelical schools--she kept talking about all the guilt those students felt when they did engage in sex, and she seemed to advocate the middle ground suggested here: something between chastity/promiscuity.

Sure, casual sex is fine for those who enjoy it, and I certainly won't condemn anyone for that, but I personally am not ready for it. Ditto to moonfall in that I've never had sexual contact, and I really wouldn't be comfortable doing so with someone I don't have some sort of relationship with.

SarahMC:

"Food is literally a requirement for an individual's survival. If you stop eating, eventually you will starve and die. Sex isn't like that. At the same time"

No, if we stop having sex the species dies.

"At the same time, it's possible to spoil one's appetite with food. If you eat too much, you will become full or even uncomfortably stuffed. You can't "spoil" your appetite for sex by having too much sex."

I've found this to be more true of women than men. One of my favorite authors once said "A Woman is never quite so ready as she is after she already has". I've observed this to be more true than otherwise, meanwhile my desire and ability certainly fade post coitus (with one notable exception, the only woman I would consider marrying right this moment and would make my mother happy as she is the trifecta: An MD, my age, and a member of the tribe).

Theogirl, your argument that extramarital sex is "lying with your body" seems to be predicated on two notions, both of which are false.

First, you argue that having sex is saying "I love you" with your body. That's not necessarily the case. Sometimes it's just saying, "I want to share sexual pleasure with you". There's nothing wrong with that; for humans, sex is primarily about pleasure. Ask someone what they're thinking about in the moment before orgasm -- chances are it has nothing to do with long walks on the beach*.

Still, sometimes sex is also about love. My now-husband and I back in high school knew we were in love, though we weren't sure whether it would last and we both felt that we were too young to be married. But, by your logic, we were "lying with our bodies". Why?

Because of your second notion: that love within the legal bonds of marriage is the only kind that counts. I'm sure if you take a few minutes to think about this, you'll realize how ridiculous this argument is. The presence of a wedding ring does not guarantee love, nor does the lack of one deny it.

*Your faked-laughter simile works very well for faked orgasm, btw, but not for orgasmic extramarital sex.

I'll agree with Xana and moonfall, and go a step further. I think casual sex and the ability to have it is a privilege. One tied up with beauty standards, socialization, disability, and the like.

I'm 20 years old. I have never had the opportunity to have sex, let alone casually. In fact, I've never had any sexual contact whatsoever, not even holding hands. There are many reasons for this, most of which are personal.

My point is: it's more complicated than simple choice. I can't wake up one day and say "You know what? I want to start having sex!" and then go out and have sex. It doesn't work that way. Sex (other than masturbation) requires a partner, or more than one. Not everyone *has* that choice.

Of course sex is required for the continuation of the species, Logrus. But I pretty clearly used the word "individual" in my comment.

I like sex.

That being said...

Why do we bring up topics that boil down to personal choice and throw blanket generalizations on them?

Isn't it healthier for me to acknowledge (to you) my respect for your opinion, and to not try to push you to do what I want. If I want to have casual sex, sure - why not. I'll find someone else who wants the same thing and we can go fuck, ourselves.

The question then becomes one of communication between me, as an individual, and the people who I engage in my life. What is my motive? What do I have to offer going in? What are my expectations coming out? For me, these are things I have to understand and honestly lay out in front of someone else for them to be able to make their own choice. Just like I need to know where my partner is in her life so I can make a morally justifyable position.

So then it comes down to personal responsability. If my feelings start getting involved in casual sex - I should be clear about that. Then it'd either end or the arrangement would move on to another thing.

Understand yourself. Strive to communicate with others. Listen with consideration and empathy. Then decide what's best for you, and go with it.

Hey Kate,
Wink wink.

SarahMC: I know, I just want to point out that both are actual necessities, but on a different scale. The way I read your statement on food was that food was more important or of a higher order of need because it's something that is immediately required for survival.

In fact I would argue that there are more similarities between our appetite for food and our appetite for sex, that the two are linked by psyche and by biology, than there are dissimilarities.

But I'm an epicurean in that regard, so I view appetites as primarily similar. Hunger for food and hunger for sex, and variety in both are something that contribute to why I'm single and don't buy in bulk.

Great. I can't even post on a feminism site without being harassed. I think this might be some kind of nadir.

Reminds me of a feminist joke:
How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb.

That's not funny.

James_: As someone who pisses people off pretty regularly and questions a lot of stuff, your comments still came off as really uncool and condescending.

There is a time and a place for the "How you doin'?" comments, this wasn't it.

Logrus
Oh well.
You'll never find someone who works in risk mitigation with a good sense of humor.

Fuck this. I have a sense of humor. Just because it isn't the same as YOURS doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

"You'll never find someone who works in risk mitigation with a good sense of humor."

in other words:

If I try to play it safe (risk mitigation) then I'll go through life without a sense of humor - as that nearly all humor is possibly taken as offensive.

I think you have it all wrong Jessica. Casual sex is harmful to women. There are very few women who can detach their feelings from sex, so it usually ends in tears. The acceptance of casual sex was one of the worst things to ever happen to women. Casual sex is exploitation of women, not liberating.