Love is the province of the brave.

Thanks to Caroline for this fascinating excerpt from Wendy Shalit’s book: Girls Gone Mild.

I’m very mixed about it. I can see some of her points, but I can’t stand a lot of them too. She throws an awful lot of ideas out at once and connects things with some pretty big leaps, so here are some of my fragmented thoughts on a few of them:

Like Shalit, I’m pretty fed up with the glorification of the jaded anti romantic. I totally believe in the importance of being earnest. Connection is beautiful, human and as far as I can tell, necessary, evading it seems like a destructive effort that I can’t see any positive justification for.

But hey, if that’s really the way for some people, then charge on! I guess it’s just hard for me to believe that it feels good.

But her knee jerk reaction that fucking around is an inherently depressing activity is totally daft. I truly believe, “if it feels good, do it”, but that’s me being glib. Knowing yourself well enough to know what feels good to you, having the balls to demand what feels good to you –that’s the point, and apparently reading some of the letters she’s gotten, not so easy to do.

What’s so irritating about what I’m reading in contemporary sexual politics is how the discussion is still so centered on virgin/whore dichotomies. I think it isn’t about teaching girls to be sluts or teaching them to remain virgins, it’s about teaching humans to be true to themselves and having the conviction to stand by that truth AND to understand that that truth is constantly evolving. There are no guarantees, the second you tell the world you’re one thing, you find yourself becoming something else. The second you say you’d never try THAT thing, a while later it’s all you can think about. I used to be a resolute prude, now I’m really not. I used to think I was gay, now I don’t.

I guess the absolutism of these theories is what gets to me. I suppose to sell books and make a point you’ve got to have a hypothesis and stick to it. But that’s where theory gets lost on real life. In truth we all go through phases. Casual sex works for some for a while, sometimes it leads to relationships, sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes you want something more and you get it and everybody’s happy or you don’t and somebody’s sad. So, you can be alone for a while or say yes to casual sex, or not, your choice and on and on.

My parents were not so direct with the Sex Ed. For instance I wasn’t allowed to see Inner Space because my mom freaked about the scenes where they traveled through fallopian tubes! Nonetheless, when it mattered, I was instilled with enough sense to know when I wanted to have sex, when I didn’t and how to make that happen, or not.

I truly believe that most of society’s problems always comes down to education. If you aren’t teaching kids analytical thinking, then they won't have the forethought, awareness or the solid identity to make good decisions. If kids can’t filter media information, then they will get into hairy situations. That said, even the best educated, most sensible, ballsiest kid is going to do some shit they wished they hadn’t, and that’s learning too.

Another problem with her book is it’s utterly stoopid to compare the sexual narratives of teenagers and adults -apples and oranges.

*

I feel like GROWN UP sexual society is having growing pains, I believe men are in crisis, I believe women are blasting away barriers, and it’s bound to cause a little upset in relationship and sexual norms, and yes the casualties of such change are that some people are going to do things they shouldn’t but that’s life, take responsibility for it.

I’m fascinated by the idea that the glass ceiling has shifted from the workplace to the relationship realm. I can’t tell you how many incredible women I know who can’t get their relationships to work, or simply can’t even get into a relationship. It’s pretty startling. I know amazing men with the same difficulty, but to a much lesser extent.

Kate and I were talking a bit ago about how there is no paradigm for the woman who wants and has it all.

There is the Sex in the City protagonist who is constantly chasing an unavailable man. She has “everything” but respectful, reliable, reciprocated, satisfying love is wholly illusive.

I don’t watch enough TV to do a thorough analysis, but just flicking through my memory bank of films, books and programming I can’t think of a story that permits a woman to be accomplished, healthy and sexually satisfied whilst also having a rewarding emotional relationship with a partner -it seems like there always has to be one part of the grand total that is lost or sacrificed.

*

Slut is an ugly word, and there are people who are up to ugly stuff, so they too should have a name. I say if we care to keep the term slut around, have it be emblematic of the sorry men and women who engage in empty, unconnected sex. I agree with Shalit, Dona Juanita isn’t a happy camper. If you remember the original legend of Don Juan, he threw away true love and because of that was left alone with nothing but a jester suit.

I think "Casanovita" would be a better example, and that she IS a happy camper. Casanova may have gotten more than his fair share of tail, but he was fueled by a brave passion for brilliance, pleasure and learning –that sounds good to me.

*

Again, in conflict with Shalit’s ideas, I know plenty of women who, like me, are romantics and have no inclination nor feel any pressure to repress the desire for a stable, healthy, long term relationship and in the mean time, have no problem indulging in casual (but no less meaningful) dynamics as well.

I could pick apart her ideas for hours. That’ll do for now.

Mils