Oh darlin' you hit the nail on the head.

Now if we could manage to marry you off, maybe you'd get a better attitude... ;)

Holy shit- I think I may have strained something in my neck laughing! I need that on a t-shirt.

I find most of this advice applies to me. I wish I had had it in college. I did spend nights pining after guys who couldn't remember my name. I did have friends with STDs who felt unlovable. I did get depressed as the years went by and the partners increased.

I think the difference may be that I was sexually abused as a child, so I was acting out sexually.

Perhaps for a young woman with a healthy sexual self-image, making the choice to have casual sex wouldn't be traumatic....

You see, I would never have fully understood this issue if I didn't have a little red sign to tell me so.

Someone spent a lot of thought on that advice. Deep, Deep thought.

I think it needs to be poster size.

Wow, Page 16. Just wow.

It's downright amazing someone would put something so judgemental so eloquently, but so obvious someone could use a little backdoor action.

I mean, how can you knock it til you try it, Clare Booth Luce Institute, huh?

I second the t-shirt notion. "Clare Booth Luce says...'The rectum is an exit, not an entrance'" Perhaps with a motherly type wagering a finger or something.
Sound advice. HAHAHA

That is the saddest/funniest thing I have ever read. Thank you.

Dear Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute,

Correlation does not imply causation.

Sincerely,
K. Lightning

Fired Up and Fancy- now THAT is a t-shirt I would gladly wear around town!

... the mind boggles.

Also, kid_lightning? Great answer. :)

I have trouble reconciling the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute with the Clare Boothe Luce Program for women in science. It's clear to me that the only thing these two things have in common is a name.

Steph...a lot of the reasons we "feel bad" is because society tells us to, and it also tell men that they're often expected to be asshats (pun...intended?) I think the important lesson is that shaming women into being either "sluts" or "prudes" is equally terrible and misogynistic.

I am sorry for the abuse you experienced. No one should have to go through that.

AR

Perhaps there are some other, more science educated commenters who can help me out but don't men release oxytocin as well? It's not just a "female" thing.

And why is that the main thing these anti-sex people seem to glom onto when slut shaming? Oh wait, they believe women are slaves to their hormones...

I'm insulted that they borrowed the name from one of my favorite books.

Though, I guess so-called "conservative feminists" love Jane Austen the same way they love Susan B. Anthony, etc. They were the "real feminists" who were fighting for the rights to vote and for women to have the right to speak their minds in society. The feminist movement ended when we got the right to vote. Those rabble-rousers in the 60s and beyond were just trying to cause trouble and ruin families.

Damn, apparently "timeout" actually meant "posting your comment 8 billion times". FAIL.

Rectum! Nearly killed 'um!

Gotta love that logic. So, rates of women having casual sex have gone up, and so have women's depression rates. Well, that must be the reason why! I mean, I have purple underwear on today and it rained. I guess my undergarments are the reason why.

I could easily take their argument and say.. birth control prices for college women have gone up.. and so have rates of depression among young women.

Gotta love that logic. So, rates of women having casual sex have gone up, and so have women's depression rates. Well, that must be the reason why! I mean, I have purple underwear on today and it rained. I guess my undergarments are the reason why.

I could easily take their argument and say.. birth control prices for college women have gone up.. and so have rates of depression among young women.

This is only peripherally related and I'm sure nobody cares but I figured I'd at least get it off my chest in a sympathetic environment:

So I'm leaving for college tomorrow. I was at Kohl's yesterday with my mom and younger sister, and we were sitting in the dressing room, and in between berating my sister for trying everything on a size too small, my mom gets it in her head to lean over and whisper very loudly in my ear, "IF YOU DO HAVE SEX IN COLLEGE MAKE SURE YOU HAVE SAFE SEX, OKAY?"

So I kind of spluttered and was like, "Okay, first of all, I'm way ahead of you, and secondly, don't you think it's kind of a moot point to introduce now, considering that you really never told us anything, and for all you know I might have no idea what 'safe sex' even means? I never even had sex ed in school. I had to look all this stuff up for myself. So yeah, Mom, don't worry about it."

Her: (indignantly) "I told you stuff! 'Don't give it all away, you'll regret it!'"
Me: (facepalm) "That's not really the kind of thing I was talking about, Mom."

Sigh. Ah well. Clearly she could have been a lot worse, as she frequently reminds us, and as "the College Girl's Guide" serves to illustrate. At least I didn't find a copy on the bathroom counter or anything.

Look on the bright side, Misspelled: your mother could have loudly informed you in the dressing room that "your rectum is an exit, not an entrance".

i'm pretty sure the rectum-exit-only screenshot has to become my background on my computer. i work with the gays, and certainly it can be FULLY appreciated for all its glory here... ha!

Forget all this stuff about how women are depressed because they keep having sex. I think it's not just sex, but specifically a certain kind of sex. All I'm saying -- and I'm sure that Clare Boothe Luce would agree with me here -- is that Prozac sales sure would be going down if only more women had the right directional sign hanging over their rectum!

Now I have visions of a neon "exit" sign stuck on some poor woman's butt. Clearly there's something wrong with me.

My comment on p.16 (and I say from experience):

YMMV.

Oh, man. Page 6 made me laugh so hard my belly hurt. I love it.

I think there was something in Ms. Grossman's rectum when she wrote this.

oh man, hilarious.
it would be more so if people didn't actually listen to this bs though.

steph, that really sucks, but part of what feminists want to do is to help more women grow up with a healthy sexual image (and correct medical information!) in the first place. people who write this tripe on the other hand just want us to feel bad for having sexual feelings in the first place, much less ever acting on them (outside of marriage i guess. to a dude. whenever said dude wants and in dude-pleasing ways.)

I realize that I'm going to get yelled at about 50 different ways for this. I apologize in advance.

I don't want to hook up. Ever. I don't want to have sex outside of relationships. This might mean until marriage, and this might not. I haven't decided yet because I have yet to have a relationship, for various reasons. I've already been over the fact that the ability to have casual sex or "hook up" is a privilege.

But this does NOT mean I'm not comfortable with my sexuality! Casual sex isn't for everyone. Saying it's for everyone is rather like saying everyone should have a certain fetish. It doesn't work that way. Sexuality is an individual thing.

I'm sorry, again, but I can already see this conversation heading in that direction. Nobody's quite said it yet, but there have been hints.

Aw, thanks, Jessica. : )

katemoore, no yelling from me. If you don't want to have sex outside of a committed relationship, someone "yelling" at you for that is no better than this book. The sex you have or don't have is your decision, and it's up to you to be sure what you want ANYWHERE along the sexual continuum.

Personally, my issue isn't with the entirety of what they're saying (finding out I had precancerous lesions on my cervix was certainly upsetting and depressing) - it's with their generalization and moral superiority.

These excerpts remind me of the people who jump to "Why couldn't she keep her legs closed?" but not "Why didn't he keep it his pants?" in the case of an unexpected pregnancy. Very lopsided.

No one would want to yell at you for that, katemoore, or assume that you're not comfortable with your sexuality. Everyone deserves to make their own choices without being shamed or lied to in an attempt to manipulate those choices.

katemoore, nobody has said any such thing. There is nothing wrong with not wanting to hook up. The important thing here is that we all feel women should be able to choose under what circumstances they have sex without being made to feel bad either way. If a girl wants to hook up only because she thinks it will make her popular, she very likely does not have a healthy outlook on sex. The same goes for a girl who wants to hook up but doesn't because she doesn't want to be "a slut." Do what you want, and don't let it be dictated by fears of being called a "slut" or a "prude" by society.

I agree, Cynical Nymph. My mother, sister, and myself are all very very active feminists, and my mother AND father were both virgins until they married (I myself feel a little 'yikes' when i tell people this, but still, my parents DO kick azz), and my sister also wants to be a virgin til she marries but DOES NOT want any kids, ever. However, I am the complete opposite sexually. I was promiscuous in college, but sadly, I think part of it (although not all of it) was because I was not 100% sexually 'healthy'. I had an unsettling situation or two.
I do also want to add to Steph's post. I have HPV, and found out during college. It was devastating to me, and my boyfriend actually dumped me because of it. And although the vast majority of boyfriends afterwards who were willing to be educated on it came to be cool with it, I did have two more that did not want to participate in sexual activities because of it. So, actually, that section was not so out of the park for me. Pretty on target, actually. And I now am suffering from repeated abnormal paps, resulting in painful biopsies and cryotherapies. And condoms don't fully protect from it. So...yeah. That one actually is a good point - although it never stopped me from having a healthy sexual appetite. I still love sex! And have a loving partner who is 100% cool and understanding about it.

Ande- It is now the background on my computer as well, and I am going to cry laughing every time I open my laptop.

katemoore,

Feminism is about giving women the tools they need to be successfulFirst -
katemoore,

Feminism is about giving women the tools they need to be successful in any and all endeavors they choose. This means empowering women with the truth about their sexuality (among many other things). The problem with this book is that it does not tell the truth. A simple search of oxytocin on wikipedia shows that women AND MEN release oxytocin while sexually aroused, but even that is unclear. “Slut shaming” books like this one scare women into thinking that their sexual desires are evil and bad and should never be expressed.
As for you not wanting to have casual sex, I don’t want to have casual sex either. I don’t think it is a good choice for me. In fact, I’ve only had one sexual partner and I plan on being with him for the rest of my life. I don’t think I’m crazy, and I doubt any person will challenge my choice. You should never apologize for your sexuality and the choices you make for yourself. I’ve been reading this website for a while and have yet to see anyone proclaim that casual sex/many partners is the only way that people should behave. What I have seen is women supporting each other in what choices they make for themselves.

Second:
On the HPV thing. I found out I had HPV a couple months ago. I’ve only ever been with one partner and been with him for 4.5 years. Was I freaked out? A little. But only because I did not have enough information before I got it. I later learned HPV can remained latent in one’s system and after years finally produce symptoms. But seriously, I was not aware that 50% of people ages 20-24 have it and men cannot be screened for HPV.
Learning you have HPV is only devastating if you know nothing about it. Which is why I’m so angry at my sex-ed and this book. Had I known (and my partner known) that most cases of HPV are no big deal, we would not have worried at all.

What these snippets of the book say to me is “If women don’t know the truth or have the knowledge about the things they may face, we can keep them afraid of the big bad world. If we keep telling women lies and misinformation, we can control them.”

"I don't think not wanting to hook up is a bad thing. I think any informed decision women make about their sexuality should be respected, whether it's casual sex, abstinence, or anything in between. Like you said, sexuality is an individual thing. And I think that's what bugs me most about stuff like this "guide" - it ignores any nuance and complexity women might have in their sexual and personal desires and replaces it with hackneyed stereotypes based on what THEY want for women."

amen!
this is a personal thing and it varies by individual. women should do whatever they damn well please without guilt or shame or judgment either way. it's a problem when people like these clare booth luce nutjobs fail to grasp that women are PEOPLE, not some homogenous mass of estrogen or whatever and as a result, opinions on sex and decisions in that are will differ based on an individual woman's thoughts and feelings.

MLEmac, I agree, I'm pretty horrified that they're ripping of Sense and Sensibility.
Don't forget the Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute also sponsors Christina Hoff Summer's jaunts across America to tell us to stop achieving because it's hurting the boys.

Femgineer, i have to disagree on your comments about HPV from personal experience. My original freak-out could have definitely been avoided had I had the education on it first. However, it has become something to be worried about since. I am now at high risk for cervical cancer, and as I mentioned, have gone through 3 painful (very for me, but i have low tolerance for pain!) biopsies and what will now be two also painful treatments of cryotherapy. So, I would not say AT ALL that HPV is not devastating! It turns out I will probably have to go through this cycle of biopsy/cryo every ten, fifteen or so years. That's nothing to be blip about. Also, the numbers are actually 80% of sexually active women between the ages of 18-24 that have HPV. It's only the men which can say it is no big deal, as they are only carriers of high risk hpv and have no symptoms. I was not one of the lucky ones to have it go latent. Additionally, there is low-risk hpv, which causes warts, which can be very devastating as well. My friend in college was actually a virgin and STILL got hpv from a guy who performed oral sex on her. She was extremely depressed from her gyno treatments for several months. Definitely can be devastating.

Ugh. So many things wrong with this. For one, can't ANY conservatives do any research on oxytocin? Please? First of all, it's WAY too poorly understood to be throwing it like that, declaring with authority that it will do certain things to your sex life. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, most research suggests that--gasp!--men experience its effects during sex too! So this argument that women are doomed to fall in love with their 1-night stands and men aren't because of biology = fail.

Also, way to equate taking antidepressants with being a slut, Miriam. There's nothing wrong with you if you take Prozac or Zoloft or any other antidepressant. Not that having herpes makes you a bad person either. But really? Not all sexually active people are depressed and vice versa.

This author needs to grow the hell up.

As for the Page 6 thing, maybe she's just upset because she just got done with a bad colonoscopy?

Posted by a.k.a UltraMagnus:

I'm insulted that they borrowed the name from one of my favorite books.

Though, I guess so-called "conservative feminists" love Jane Austen the same way they love Susan B. Anthony, etc. They were the "real feminists" who were fighting for the rights to vote and for women to have the right to speak their minds in society. The feminist movement ended when we got the right to vote. Those rabble-rousers in the 60s and beyond were just trying to cause trouble and ruin families.

It also could be that she sees Jane Austen as a defender of traditional values, which is not uncommon. It's easy to read P&P or S&S and miss the irony and subtle social criticism. Many, many women read Austen and see only that her novels dictate marriage as the perfect happy ending for women. Removed from historical context and read shallowly by women who crave traditional romance plots, an Austen novel can become pretty depressing.

Note to KateMoore, if there's room for me in the feminist movement there's room for you.

Real feminists love that you never want to hook up, they think it's fantastic that you have a diverse and uniquely feminine voice. The sex doesn't make you a feminist, your voice does.

I have chosen every path that my mother's generation tried to avoid, guess what? It was my choice. You have a choice and so do I.

At least that's what my husband told me to say...

era4allNOW,

I posted that before I read your previous one. So, I apologize for making it seem that I meant that ALL HPV is not devastating. But, MOST people will not develop symptoms or health problems related to HPV.

The main point I was trying to make is that the book
probably does not give hard figures, it seems to only tell girls that their self esteem will go down as well as their GPA and that no one will want them. This approach only scares young women, instead of giving them good information to help them make good decisions.

I agree that the women (and men) should be able to express themselves sexually however they want, but I have to disagree that casual sex should be treated without judgment.

Disregarding religion, I have to be honest and say that any women (or man) who admits they have slept with lots of people they barely knew would be a little sketchy in my book. Can't we all agree that a "healthy" sex life is one with a single partner and a committed relationship? If so, I don't know if this book's overall message is that terrible. In this case, I think men need a book instructing them that sleeping with as many women as possible does not make them a stud, it makes them a scum bag. I would not be surprised if depression goes up as the number of sex partners increases. People have desires but people also have self control. Not exercising it can cause lots of problems not the least of which are STDs and traumatic experiences with people you found you didn't know as well as you thought you did.

All I'm saying is that perhaps conventional wisdom might be right on this point and perhaps needs to be advised to men. It would be nice if men didn't ascribe an element of their identity with the number of people they have slept with.

"I never even had sex ed in school. I had to look all this stuff up for myself. So yeah, Mom, don't worry about it."

I hear you. My mom refused to let me sit in on sex ed when I was in school. You'd think, then, that she'd have educated me in some way... but no. If it wasn't for the internet, I'd know nothing!

Hah, and what's the deal with page six? How do they explain that in the book?

I'm a senior in college, and I don't really want to "hook up" either. Actually, I've never had sex at all. I have some anxiety problems that make forming relationships difficult (let's not get into that; it would make this post waaay too long).

What's with the Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute's claim of "No more sugar coated science?" Sugar-coated science can't be any worse than what they're offering, which is bogus science.

Moonfall:

Just want to let you know that myself and many others have those problems and that you aren't alone.

"Can't we all agree that a "healthy" sex life is one with a single partner and a committed relationship?"

No. No, CS, I'm sorry. We can't. A healthy sex life is any sex life that someone chooses to have that isn't hurting them or any of the people they are having sex with. For some people, that means only having sex with one person at a time in the context of a committed relationship. For many others, that is not the healthy sex life they choose. I, for one, have never had sex in a committed relationship, but I am very happy, confident, and comfortable with myself and my sexuality. For other people, a healthy sex life is polyamorous, with many people in a committed relationship. For another group of other people, a healthy sex life is regular sex with one person in a committed relationship and occasional sex with other people outside it. Assuming that the only healthy sex to have is in this one specific context (only one person, only in serious relationships) is one of the fundamental problems with this stupid booklet.

I think the best way to prevent some of the nastier consequences of being sexually active with any number of partners (from 1 to ???) is teaching a better, more comprehensive thought process about sex - from the beginning. I don't necessarily mean literal sex ed (although, jeez, that would help), but I DO mean teaching women and men to respect for themselves and to understand the sexual decisions they make.

It's a lot easier to feel ill at ease about sex and sexuality (committed or otherwise, once or fifty times with a particular partner) if you aren't first secure in yourself and your own decisions. What this book preys on, as others have already noted, is that insecurity.

sorry, gotta disagree with you, CS on this:
"Disregarding religion, I have to be honest and say that any women (or man) who admits they have slept with lots of people they barely knew would be a little sketchy in my book. Can't we all agree that a "healthy" sex life is one with a single partner and a committed relationship?"

i'd say that "healthy" sex is sex where both parties are consenting adults who are having sex because they really want to and not because of some other reason. i'd also stipulate that healthy sex means that the parties have decided what level of protection from pregnancy and STDs, if any, they deem is appropriate for them (and ok, yeah, if you're having sex with a total stranger, you need to at least guard against STDs, that's just common courtesy) but that's really my only criteria. some people are only interested in having sex in a committed relationship and others aren't, and probably most people are interested in different kinds of sex at different times--at least this is the case with most everyone i know. i don't think that's the least bit unhealthy, sorry.

Ummm. Speechless.

Can't we all agree that a "healthy" sex life is one with a single partner and a committed relationship?
I'll ask the question I ask everyone who says this: Why? Is it to ensure paternity? Is it because sex is wrong or immoral and only for procreation? Does a single partner encompass someone of the same gender or someone who's trans? Is there room in a sex life for BD/SM, dress up, toys, and general kink, or is it only missionary position hetero sex?
As long as both people in a sexual relationship practice safer sex, are consenting, and have similar expectations then why should they be in a single partner relationship? I hate to suggest it because I didn't give it a favorable review, but I suggest reading Opening Up by Tristan Taormino to learn more about the different kinds of open relationships.

So the Clare Booth Luce Institute doesn't want us to be having sex, but we should be having babies? How does that work, exactly?

That pink cursive writing is really irritating. Also, is it just me or do they use really small words in the booklet? I mean, this book is for college-aged women and they used language that people would usually use with middle schoolers. It made it seem like they were "talking down" to college-age women.

I have to be honest and say that any women (or man) who admits they have slept with lots of people they barely knew would be a little sketchy in my book. Can't we all agree that a "healthy" sex life is one with a single partner and a committed relationship?

Another problem with this statement: why assume that just because a person has had casual sex that they have slept with lots of people? Sounds way too Madonna/Whore to me. It isn't all or nothing. You don't automatically go on a screwing rampage and lay everything in sight simply because you have casual sex a few times in your life.

CS,

People have sex for different reasons. There are people who have unprotected, unfulfilling sex with multiple partners because they have deep-seated emotional issues stemming from abuse, or because they're addicted to the rush they get from it. There are some who don't really want to have sex but are afraid to say no, and there are some that are searching for intimacy rather than sex. These people are having sex for the wrong reasons.

But there are also people who choose to have casual sex because they honestly want to, and as long as those experiences are safe, sane and consensual (to borrow a phrase from the BDSM community) physically, emotionally, and mentally, I say, more power to them. While I wouldn't want to engage in the kinds of things they do (my monogamous relationship with my fantastic pro-feminist boyfriend and frequent visits to Babeland are quite enough for me, thanks), they manage to do them safely and sanely and have a great time.

I think what young women (actually, people of all genders) need is to know themselves. They should constantly be checking in with themselves, and when they find themselves in a sexual situation, they should ask themselves, "Is this what I really want? Is this safe? Am I ready to deal with the consequences?" If the answer's no, they shouldn't do it. Knowledge is power, and self-awareness can only empower them.

thanks, racyt and nothing sacred for saying it better than i did.

nothing gets me riled up like a good slut-shaming! grrrrr!

Odd. In the 2 years its been since I started college I've had almost as many sexual partners as I have fingers. I'm neither on antidepressants, pregnant or infected with a (VERY FRIGGIN MILD) STD. I can guarantee they all know my name as I have/had perfectly healthy relationships/relations with all of them. Might I also add I belong to multiple national honors society and have the 4.0 to prove it.

But what do I know? I'm just a female engineering major. Everyone knows girls aren't even good at math, let alone responsible human beings.

Is it just me or is there a conflicting message here? "Don't have sex but you really need to have a baby soon. Do it now, RIGHT NOW. Oops, you missed the window."

I'll have to tell my gastroenterologist about page 16 the next time he wants to do a colonoscopy. (I have GI issues.) I'm sure he'll think it's pretty funny.

The sad thing is these sorts of people make me want to go out and have loads of casual sex--except I'm happily married and monogamous. I hate leading a life they'd approve of! (But not enough to cheat on my darling husband.)

Sorry about that intro. It's mainly from my experience with friends and acquaintances. There have been times (not all the time, but some) where they'd be talking about their sex life and I'd usually be quiet, not having much to contribute. When asked why I was so quiet, I'd mention that I was a virgin and wasn't really into hooking up.

Reactions ranged from weirded out to "Oh, you just need to get laid and you'll think differently" to calling me a prude. (Some people, of course, were cool with it; they're now my friends.)

It's just a knee-jerk defense.

So I read through the booklet (if you click on the link you can download it in pdf form). It was only 24 pages.
I love that at the end of the booklet, it says "Life may throw you some curve balls, but STDs, ... are burdens that you can avoid." Well, that's not really true, unless your first and only partner is a virgin as well. But instead of "slut-shaming" males, they are virgin shamed.

I hate this pseudo-science crap, told by a physician at a campus counseling center. The information is too little, too late (and crap), to be of any real use.

AARGGGG. I'm so angry at this!!!

Can't we all agree that a "healthy" sex life is one with a single partner and a committed relationship?

And personally? I am prone to depression and have been from a child. If anything I have found that casual sex has helped me feel more relaxed and positive when I've been feeling down. The only way I see casual sex as negative is if one person is using the other, which this kind of "boys think this way, girls think that way" crap encourages.

"Condoms provide some protection, but anal intercourse is simply too dangerous to practice."

Since when is the FDA giving out sex advise? Shouldn't they be more concerned with what goes into the other end of my digestive system?

"Condoms provide some protection, but anal intercourse is simply too dangerous to practice."

Since when is the FDA giving out sex advice? Shouldn't they be more concerned with what goes into the other end of my digestive system?

Re. Page 16:

I suppose that means pegging is right out.

This definitely made me laugh pretty hard. Which definitely made me choke on my semi-frozen, freezer-burned, Ketchup-smeared Pogo.

So, let me get this straight. This doctor is telling college girls to have babies in their twenties before their ovaries shrivel up, but also to "wait and choose the right man." What if the "right man" doesn't come along until she's in her thirties or forties? And I love the blatant hypocrisy of a FEMALE DOCTOR telling girls that higher education and careers will squash their dreams of motherhood. She ends with "Now go pursue your dreams." But only in a specific order so that it doesn't get in the way of baby-making. I really hate it when people use "decreasing fertility with age" as an excuse to tell women to become wives and mothers early. You know what? Sometimes infertility just happens regardless. I was diagnosed with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, the leading cause of infertility for women, when I was 17. What the hell was I supposed to do, marry at 16? Now if you'll excuse me, Dr. Grossman, I need to start working on my masters thesis.

"A healthy sex life is any sex life that someone chooses to have that isn't hurting them or any of the people they are having sex with."

"as long as those experiences are safe, sane and consensual (to borrow a phrase from the BDSM community) physically, emotionally, and mentally"

I think the primary justification for multiple partners and without the security of a committed relationship is a denial of the emotional involvement which sex incurs.

Can you have sex without entering into a loving relationship with another person? Yes. Can you remain unattached to anyone and so escape the responsibility to control your desires? Yes. Is sex without an emotional bond and trust healthy? I say no.

First: establishment of what is considered safe. How well do you know the person you will be going home with? I submit that placing yourself in a compromising position with a person you don't know can't be considered safe unless you are armed (think mace, etc.). Do they have Aids? Syphilis? Herpes? Are you willing to take the chance that the condom won't break and subject you to a life of illness? Are you willing to take the chance that the person isn't going to start stalking you after they find out where you live? Or if the boyfriend/girlfriend they didn't mention is going to cave your windshield in? Is the momentary satisfaction of scratching that particular itch so fulfilling that it overcomes these concerns?

Second: establishment of what is considered sane. You mentioned that there are people out there who have sex for the wrong reasons whether they are mental instability, abuse, addiction, etc. How can you be sure that the person you are having sex with is not approaching it from these angles and that the experience isn’t going to end of harming them. I submit that it is impossible to make this judgment with a person you don’t know. Furthermore, I don’t think a person could honestly make this judgment about themselves in this situation. Sex on this level is almost animalistic. It treats our bodies as objects devoid of any emotional cargo. I say that an act of pleasure like this contains more emotional involvement than a pick-up basketball game. This is at the core of why I would consider people who hook up randomly “sketchy.” They ignore the essential parts of themselves that form the basis of who we are. Sex on this level treats people as disposable objects of pleasure to be discarded after being used to satisfy our most base impulses. Just because there might be a mutual agreement to use and discard doesn’t remove the fact that when people are naked, vulnerable and left to another’s piercing scrutiny there is an emotional connection formed. Can you say that you and your partner won’t be harmed by this callousness later? Can you say that sex at this level involves no objectification of the body at the expense of the person’s identity? Is the momentary satisfaction of scratching that particular itch so fulfilling that it overcomes these concerns?

Third: establishment of what is considered healthy. Form an emotional attachment to a person that is based on something other than sex. Know them when they are happy, sad, angry, etc. Know what they have done in the past and their dreams about the future. Know where they came from and where they are going. Understand that you can trust that person to be strong against their basic desires and recognize that they feel the same with you. Sex at this level meets all the above criteria. Additionally, there is no comparison as far as satisfaction. The satisfaction is long-lasting, emotionally nurturing and, I say, Healthy. If it doesn’t work out, break up and try again.

The bottom line is: why do it? Why settle for such a cheap and poor replacement when there is a much better option? The answer, it seems to me, is that it is easier and quicker. Maybe a better question is: why not?

For the record: there is no mention of gender whatsoever here. Everything goes for everyone.

I have GI issues too, but I view the scope as more like the security team having to break through the "exit only" door to reach a problem inside the building because it's the best way to reach the terrorists.

My rectum is exit only.

Other people can do what they want with their rectums.

It's kind of funny, though, that anti-feminists are telling everyone what to do with their rectums, since it seems to me that anti-feminists are usually pretty much in favor of backdoor action, lest you be a "prude" and "unadventurous" and something-something. But I think it's the opposite end of anti-feminists. The non-religious women-as-property vs. the religious women-as-property.

(I just get really tired of the aforementioned types AND the pro-sex types telling me "everyone needs to try buttsex/oral sex." No, I don't. Thanks anyway.)

CS:

So much "I say" in there. You do offer very valid points about why you, yourself, do not want to engage in casual encounters. I agree that, from your arguments, it would be unhealthy for you to do so.

If your statement that "I have to disagree that casual sex should be treated without judgment." means that you believe people should use their best judgment when engaging in, or deciding not to engage in, casual sex, you'll get no argument from me.

In fact, I don't think anyone here said that casual sex should be engaged in indiscriminately and with little or no thought.

If what you meant when you said you would consider people who have had a lot of partners "sketchy," was that you would be hesitant to engage in a sexual relationship with such a person based on your personal values, rather than that such a person is a "slut" or a "scum-bag," I see no problem with that.

However, many of your statements make it seem as though you actually do mean to patronize, slut shame, and judge others for having a different outlook on sexuality.

If that's the case, you won't find much support here.

CS, what about people who have three-way relationships? That can work. So can a lot of things - different things are for different people, really. That's why I, like Kate Moore, don't 'hook up', but respect others' choice to do so.

I believe books like this are half-truth. That's what I think whenever anyone talks about abstinence or pushes the virgin/whore paradigm etc. It's half-truth. There's a good argument for abstinence, and I've heard it. But it's an ideal, not a reality. And there's a good argument for not sleeping with everyone without using protection and at least being close enough to trust them when they say they don't have an STD. But most people know that already.

This book just peddles the same old stereotypes about gender which just prevent understanding. Oh, right, so we should become mothers when it suits everyone else, not us! The only way to be successful is to repent of your whoremongering ways and become a milkmaid, or else you'll be a pregnant, warts-ridden slut on prozac and no-one will ever love you - especially not guys because they're incapable of commitment and are ruled by their dicks. Then when your husband turns out to be a disrespectful chauvanist who only wants you to shut up whilst he screws you, at least you'll be grateful he's giving you the privilege of having sex with you at all. And when you get pregnant and don't want to be, just put up with it. Bearing children is your purpose in life, don't you know?

Yeah, we've heard it all before.

OMG! This had me laughing hysterically for a quite a while...especially page 16 (and brought back memories of the conservative teaching I got growing up). I think these conservative should just come out a sexuality manifesto to be given out to new anti-feminist women so that they know they will trade in their lives for gender role prescribed vanilla heterosexual sex with their husbands, and god forbid they enjoy it because they really ought to fear and create shame around their own sexuality.

And I'm pissed they've ripped off a Jane Austen title. For someone so gifted at critiquing society, I can only hope she is turning in her grave with Grossman's dense correlation as causation attempt at analysis.

CS,

I'm going to add my voice to the chorus here. Like a previous commenter said, your reasons for your not having casual sex are certainly valid. But you seem to think that the only kind of casual, no-string-attached sex is the kind that is done indiscriminately and without thinking. You seem to think that a relationship is a better alternative, as though a relationship is always an alternative. What if a person is not in a good place for a relationship? Should s/he give up sex altogether? What if two friends are attracted to each other but would not make a good couple? (That is actually the situation in which I have contemplated no-string-attached sex myself). What about open or polygamous relationships? There are a variety of life experiences you are ignoring in order to judge anyone with a multitude of partners or who has engaged in extra-relationship sex.

The same group of souls who will tell girls to savesavesave sex for marriage because it is "the oxytocin" that will form your lifelong bond (as opposed to, say, a relationship based on a shared history, mutual respect, etc.) also compare oxytocin to alcohol. These people also claim that rape is a more or less foregone conclusion when girls start to drink.

I find the whole thing more then a little strange, and it makes me wonder if, perhaps, all of these super-social conservatives have the same sort of intimacy disorder. I mean, really, they think that ONE chemical, out of the pharmacopeia that your body produces every day, in response to everything, is going to be your golden ticket to the chocolate factory of wedded bliss? Do they really have no idea that good relationships, especially long term ones, take time and thought and patience?

Not to mention, "oxytocin" only occurs in women? Have they never met a smitten young man? Smitten young men, for good or ill, are just about the most romantic creatures in the world.

Also, I think their thought on everybody else’s' rectal proclivities would have been better expressed in pink needlepoint on lace. Just a suggestion to the publisher for the next edition.

It's the homophobia of the statement that bothers me. Sure, this book is clearly aimed at straight girls, but still. There wasn't any sort of clarification in the pink cursive or anything.

CS, your comments seem to imagine a complete dichotomy between anonymous sex and monogamous relationships. In fact, some people live their entire lives between those poles. More on that - but first, you exclude asexuals. Your framing seems to posit that to be healthy, one must be sexual in a committed relationship. That's not fair to people who are not interested in being sexual at all. And not all of those folks are trauma survivors, some folks are just asexual.

About the binary: just because people have non-monogamous sex doesn't mean they don't know each other; sometimes quite well. People who are sex partners once or a few times may be good friends for years. I'm still in regular touch with friends who I was sexual with for a short time years ago -- we were friends before, and we're friends now, and I never found sexual intimacy inconsistent with friendship. YMMV, but don't tell other people what their mileage is when you don't have any data. Arrangements where people who know each other well are sexual together would seem to satisfy the bulk of your concerns about people who don't know eachother.

There seem to be a lot of women here who are pretty well in touch with their own needs and can work out for themselves what sort of relationships they want. For many that will be monogamy; but not for all, and not all the time. Some of us move through different periods. For my part, I was completely nonmonogamous from puberty until my spouse and I got serious. I had loving relationships, some of them for years, that were completely open, and my partners had other partners. In my marriage, the arrangement is a lot more confining, but we discussed our needs and came up with rules that worked for both of us.

Also, being sexual with someone can include a lot of activities other than PIV or PIA. I've been in foursomes where nobody did anything that could be called fucking. People do lots of things that are highly unlikely to transmit disease; the kinkier the crowd is, the more things people may do that are intimate but have very reduced disease implications. For example, it's controversial within BDSM circles the extent to which BDSM is even "sexual," I'm perfectly willing to do scenes where I don't climax (like it, in fact). So if people are spanking and pinching and tying up and getting hot but there's no penile penetration or oral sex, if people get off from handjobs or masturbation or not at all, that lowers the disease stakes quite a bit.

Making narrow decisions for one's self is unobjectionable. Making narrow pronouncements about other women's (and men's, since you did) conduct in a feminist space is objectionable, and as I see above, has in fact drawn a boatload of objections from the women here.

ShifterCat, they say pegging is right out. Conservatives always say they are against a lot of things. Like homosexuality, kinky sex and corruption. Until they get caught. See, e.g., Jeff Gannon, David Dreier, Larry Craig, Roger Stone, Jack Ryan, Jimmy Swaggert, Ted Stevens, Jack Abramoff and Dusty Foggo. Not necessarily in that order. In reality, the organizing principle is the privileged get the privileges and the plebes should not get to get ahead or have fun.

You know, I read Clare Booth Luce, who's responsible for this shit, even though she's dead now, had a nasty society lady feud with the Duchess of Windsor caused by Clare's slut-bashing of the Duchess and her friends. You know, I get the feeling the she loved calling women sluts so much she started the "Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute" just to insure the slut bashing went beyond society women and would continue on well after Mrs. Luce herself was no longer able to wag her finger in disgust. In fact, I've never heard of that group doing anything other than accusing women of being sluts, or being unfeminine, or of hating men and trying to keep young women from doing things they don't like.

To Courtney Stoker:

There are so many things I want to say to respond to what's going on here, but your comment stood out to me as especially hypocritical. First, you applaud KateMoore for her personal decision not to have sex (which I do as well) and then you tell her feminism isn’t about sex (which it isn’t) and that it's about voice (which it is). However, under this logic you should be applauding Dr. Grossman for having a voice, whether you agree with it or not. She is a woman, she is a doctor, and she has got people to listen to her side of the story. If feminism is about voice, Dr. Grossman is a rocking example of that.

Not to mention, someone said there was some problem with Dr. Grossman letting women know about infertility. NOWHERE does she tell you to go out and get pregnant in your 20's. All she does is give factual information on fertility so you can make an educated decision about when to get pregnant. If a woman wants to have a child (and I said if), isn’t it nice to have information regarding fertility?

To Courtney Stoker:

There are so many things I want to say to respond to what's going on here, but your comment stood out to me as especially hypocritical. First, you applaud KateMoore for her personal decision not to have sex (which I do as well) and then you tell her feminism isn’t about sex (which it isn’t) and that it's about voice (which it is). However, under this logic you should be applauding Dr. Grossman for having a voice, whether you agree with it or not. She is a woman, she is a doctor, and she has got people to listen to her side of the story. If feminism is about voice, Dr. Grossman is a rocking example of that.

Not to mention, someone said there was some problem with Dr. Grossman letting women know about infertility. NOWHERE does she tell you to go out and get pregnant in your 20's. All she does is give factual information on fertility so you can make an educated decision about when to get pregnant. If a woman wants to have a child (and I said if), isn’t it nice to have information regarding fertility?

I disagree, magnoliadc. This book is about telling college-age women WHAT TO DO. If the rest of the book is written like good ol' page six, it's not even offering advice, it's stating very clearly that you are NOT supposed to engage in anal sex, you are NOT supposed to have sex because you WILL become attached to a man (not a person, but a man) that will probably not be able to remember your name, etc. I can't really speak to the whole fertility aspect, because I haven't written it, but isn't the late teens/early twentys group (the book's target audience) probably one of the most inappropriate age groups to discuss fertility issues with?!? And if HPV is so bad (and we have seen that it can be from earlier posts), does this wonderful doctor also inform women about the HPV vaccine that could possibly prevent feeling unlovable and unable to continue with college? Somehow, I doubt it.

The overall goal of this book isn't to help women make positive choices about their sexuality, it's (from what I can tell) designed to tell them what to do (not have sex, but get married and have children ASAP) because casual/premarital sex has (apparently only) negative consequences, and if those negative consequences happen to befall a young woman, it's her fault for not listening.

Uugh, that should be "I have not read it" not "I have not written it."

Proof-reading is for suckers! :)

I downloaded it and read it.

It mentions the HPV vaccine but adds the warnings of "but it doesn't prevent HIV, Herpes, etc."

It also talks about how STD tests for men don't test for HPV, and condoms won't always protect from it.

It tries to use these to examples to show that we're screwed no matter how much protection we use, but it's total bullshit. If a girl gets the HPV vaccine AND makes sure her partner is tested, as well as using condoms, then it's a pretty safe bet she won't catch anything.

You'd think that an M.D. who is putting out such a pamplet aimed at college-aged women would have the sense to do a 2-second Google search to confirm that the character in Sex and the City was actually Miranda, not Meredith...

Sorry, couldn't let that one slip by!

KateMoore, I didn't have sex through high school and most of college, and I had the same reactions when my peers found out. I, too, got a lot of "you just need to get laid" and "OMG you're such a prude!" It seemed to me that the friends, residence hall mates, etc., who reacted neatively did so because they assumed that my choice automatically meant I was judging them for their choices - which of course I wasn't. The stereotypes of the college student obsessed with binge-drinking and hooking up and the virgin who simply must be a repressed Bible-banger are so prevalent that a lot of people just don't know how to handle it when someone defies cliche. My advice - just be yourself, do what's best for you and try not to stress about other people's insecurities.

I also thought it was interesting that while she mentions the high number of women she saw who were upset and depressed, she also failed to mention that she was a fucking campus psychiatrist! Did she actually expect women (or men for that matter) who are having happy, healthy sex lives to come in to discuss that?

I would find page 16 a great deal funnier if there wasn't a health teacher at my school who believes that 100%. And tells it to every class she has repeatedly, even if she isn't supposed to be teaching sex ed that year.

You guys! One of the girls who helped created this is apparently my friend on facebook, and she tagged me in a note about it!!! I struggled for days trying to decide how to respond, and finally I just removed myself from the note and defriended her (not because I can't stand to have friends who disagree with me, I just couldn't remember who she is and I'm trying to purge my facebook of people I don't know).

I'm so wishing I had sent it to you guys now, 'cause this was like three weeks ago.

“However, many of your statements make it seem as though you actually do mean to patronize, slut shame, and judge others for having a different outlook on sexuality.”

“Making narrow decisions for one's self is unobjectionable. Making narrow pronouncements about other women's (and men's, since you did) conduct in a feminist space is objectionable, and as I see above, has in fact drawn a boatload of objections from the women here.”

We all judge behaviors on our own opinions of right or wrong (or in this case healthy/unhealthy). I don’t mean to patronize or shame anyone, only to state and defend my position which happens to be different.

I’ve made my judgment about that particular behavior and I have no problem with objections; I realized that having a different viewpoint on the subject was going to raise them. It allows me and everyone else to defend their positions, figure themselves out and learn from each other. I don’t understand why this conduct would be objectionable in a “feminist space.” My narrow pronouncement is that a certain type of sex is unhealthy and that another is healthy. If we were discussing something like access to birth control, I believe many people would have similarly narrow pronouncements.

“just because people have non-monogamous sex doesn't mean they don't know each other; sometimes quite well”

I’d be willing to admit that this particular situation removes the dangerous elements which I talked about. However, I still would hesitate to apply the term “healthy” to this type of relationship. This again refers back to the belief that you can engage in sex and not make emotional attachments based on trust. I don’t believe that, in a healthy sexual relationship, this is true. If it does occur, it does so for the reasons I listed above regarding the treatment of the other partner(s) and their objectification. I’d like to make a distinction here because of this point. Sex when a person has almost no knowledge of their partner(s), I say, is not only unhealthy but dangerous and should be avoided for that reason alone. Sex as discussed here is more of a healthy/unhealthy and, I would say, morally better or worse situation. Moral not in the religious sense, but in an objectification sense.

”Also, being sexual with someone can include a lot of activities other than PIV or PIA.”

I think the key here is the amount of vulnerability assumed. I don’t know much philosophy or psychology but what I am trying to say is that a person’s ego and identity is formed partially from what they present to the world and the things they keep to themselves. Revealing their bodies and allowing their private non-public spaces to be exposed to another person has to instantiate an element of trust and connection. A man dressed in a business suit retains personal authority, agency and self security than that same man dressed in underwear or nothing at all. Exposing that other, non-public, side to another person has to involve an emotional connection and trust in order to be considered healthy. I believe that this might be why people would become depressed by participating in non-committing behavior. It continually violates the elements which build our ego and our personal sanctity by allowing others inside without that level of trust, commitment and emotional bond. If the act causes these things, then it would apply to what I said earlier.

”Your framing seems to posit that to be healthy, one must be sexual in a committed relationship.”

I didn’t mean to imply that. I was trying to discuss sexual relationships specifically.

How did you get a copy of that?

CS, you and I seem to have very different ideas about how sex works emotionally: and while I'm not trying to deny that your answers are valid for you, when you make broad declarations about what is "healthy" (could just as easily be moral), you are trying to tell me that mine are not valid for me.

You said:
"This again refers back to the belief that you can engage in sex and not make emotional attachments based on trust. "

I never said otherwise. I have respected, bonded with and trusted every sex partner I've had. That's a couple of dozen. I trusted them to treat me as I wanted to be treated, to communicate with me about what we were doing, and to respect me. I wasn't often disappointed, not they in me. Sometimes, I trusted those folks (almost without exception women) to do things with me that I found frightening, difficult, painful and profoundly intimate, and then not to tell the world what I liked. I have not often been disappointed. And some women have trusted me to do with them things that for them were scary, difficult, painful and profoundly intimate, and I hope I never disappointed any of them.

What I don't believe is that a bond of trust must be a bond of sexual exclusivity, or of permanance. For me, that's not how it has to be. For me, it has been the case that someone can be my friend, a friend I feel trust with and can share the intimate details of my life, a friend who I can work through difficult personal things with; and that same person may be at some point a lover, and then a friend again, without me feeling violated, and without suppressing the intimacy that sex (for me) involves. In fact, while I've had a lot of what some people might call "casual""sex", I've had PIV intercourse with relatively few partners and I've never had any kind of anonymous sex. Sex for me is intimate, and inherently involves trust -- perhaps in more concrete ways than other people understand, because I'm a BDSMer and I have to trust my partners in very specific ways.

So, if you're telling me that my way of feeling intimacy and trust are not healthy, then you're either making a universal statement which I think you can't support, or presuming things about me that you can't know.

I just read the entire pamphlet finally. Most of it makes me laugh, especially the "facts." For example: I've read a different "fact," cited by a doctor, placing the decline of fertility at virtually any year in a woman's life from 24 through 42. And the study cited about "beer goggles" as a biological imperative involved (and the pamphlet admits this - without irony) EIGHTY people. EIGHTY. Eighty people does not a compelling study make.

What I'd like to see is a rebuttal work stating that maybe, instead of ordering women what to do with their bodies, we should teach them (or ourselves, as the case may be) to know themselves inside and out before having a sexual encounter. And we should teach boys/men that a woman having anything other than one partner does not make her a slut, tainted, etc. (pick your favorite word) any more than it makes a man the same thing. ("Why didn't she keep her legs shut" vs. "Why didn't he keep it in his pants.")

Self-esteem and, let's face it, beating kids over the head with "condoms, condoms, condoms" instead of "abstinence only," would be a great standard for any girl who's growing up with a similar frame of mind to mine in my teenage/college brain, I can say that much.

@ katemoore and moonfall: I graduated from college a year ago, and I've never 'hooked up' either. In fact, like moonfall, I've never had sex at all, for very similar reasons. I just wanted you to know there was someone else in the room, as well.

I love page 6. It needs to become a T shirt, it really does.

I once had a colonoscopy, when I was only fifteen years old. Too soon, by any standards. Afterwards I felt horrible, like there was some filth in me that I had to get out. So I went back to the doctor, and he told me I had constipation, which is apparently common after such encounters. It was easily treated with stool softener, but what I couldn't poo away was the shame. Such guilt I felt, that I had let a camera enter me in such an unnatural way, and for what? A few moments' joy knowing I was polyp-free? That's not the way to find true happiness.

Remember, girls: The rectum is an exit, not an entrance.