Freedom sex

Markets data delayed by at least 15 minutes. © THE FINANCIAL TIMES LTD 2024. FT and ‘Financial Times’ are trademarks of The Financial Times Ltd.
The Financial Times and its journalism are subject to a self-regulation regime under the FT Editorial Code of Practice.

The Fight to Decouple Sex From Marriage

Sixty years ago, Helen Gurley Brown’s best-selling book promised women sexual freedom. Today, it reads like an omen.

Mel Haasch
May 19, 2022
Share
Save

This article was featured in One Story to Read Today, a newsletter in which our editors recommend a single must-read from The Atlantic, Monday through Friday. Sign up for it here.

I n 1991, as the Supreme Court hearings of Clarence Thomas were turning sexual-harassment allegations into television, Helen Gurley Brown, the editor and muse of Cosmopolitan magazine, was asked whether any of her staffers had been harassed. “I certainly hope so!” she replied.

The sentiment would not have come as a surprise to readers of the book that had, roughly three decades earlier, shot Brown to fame and infamy. Sex and the Single Girl, first published in 1962, is part memoir and part advice manual, offering tips about careers, fashion, beauty, diet, hobbies, self-care, travel, home decorating, and, yes, dating. The book—like its author, both ahead of its time and deeply of it—often reads as resolutely backward. But it is best remembered, today, for one of the arguments it put forward: Sex, as Brown summed it up in her introduction to the book’s 2003 reissue, “is enjoyed by single women who participate not to please a man as may have been the case in olden times but to please themselves.”

By Helen Gurley Brown
Buy Book

Sixty years ago, that was a radical proposition. That it remains an argument at all helps explain why Brown’s book, progress and backlash in one tidy text, continues to resonate. The Supreme Court, very soon, will likely strike down Roe v. Wade—a final, fatal slash following the thousand cuts made by state legislatures across the country. Some lawmakers, delivering on their desire to make America 1950 again, are weighing measures to criminalize contraception itself. These grim developments threaten to return sex to what it was for so long, for so many: a pleasure that becomes, all too easily, a punishment. They also bring gravity to a new anthology that reconsiders Brown’s complicated classic. Sex and the Single Woman, out this week, features 24 essays that take on, among many other timely topics, consent and polyamory and interracial dating and in vitro fertilization and sex as an activity and sex as an identity. The pieces are testaments to the hard-won freedoms of the sexual revolution that Brown both stirred and stymied. But they also read as elegies. They suggest all that is lost when sex is ceded to the state. They warn of what can happen when “the personal is political,” that elemental insight, is remade into a threat.

By Eliza M. Smith and Haley Swanson
Buy Book

W hen Sex and the Single Girl was first published, the pill had had FDA approval for only two years. Lucille Ball and Ricky Ricardo, married in life as on I Love Lucy, had spent several seasons retiring to separate beds to avoid any suggestion of sexual intimacy. (The show’s bashfulness was undiminished by Ball’s very evident onscreen pregnancy.) In that context—language veiled, pearls clutched, truths that affected everyone considered tasteful topics for no one—a book that refused to traffic in euphemism was a form of mutiny. Brown’s manual brought a winking literalism to the adage that “sex sells”: It was a commercial hit, and a cultural phenomenon. Just two years after its first publication, it was given one of the highest honors American entertainment knows how to give: It was made into a movie.

Brown’s book did not simply say sex out loud. It also talked about it, and about the women who had it outside of marriage. At its best, it is casually humane. “What is a sexy woman?” Brown asks. “Very simple. She is a woman who enjoys sex.”

With declarations like that, the book “paved the way,” the editors Eliza Smith and Haley Swanson write in the introduction to their new anthology, “for narratives like Murphy Brown, Living Single, and Sex and the City”: stories that considered women’s sexual liberation in the context of their social and professional lives. Sex and the Single Girl is cheeky and occasionally charming, its tone conversational, its sections full of learn-from-my-mistakes bits of wisdom and whimsical denigrations of the status quo (“Piffle poofle to that!”). Before Brown was an author, she was a copywriter—“a polarizing mix of Mad Men’s Peggy and Joan,” one obituary called her, upon her death in 2012—and the book reflects that background. Sex and the Single Girl, like any good ad, manufactures desires in the guise of fulfilling them. It is a book-length brochure for a life that is free of marriage’s compromises and confinements. Brown, in it, is a brand ambassador for singlehood.

Sex and the Single Girl focuses on, and arguably helped foment, the phase of life that would come to be known as “emerging adulthood”: the interstitial period that separated the years people spent in youth and the years they’d spend in marriage. Brown’s innovation was to consider the women who were scouting the uncharted acreage between Miss and Mrs.—the demographic that was, rather than moving directly from the parents’ home to a husband’s, forging a domain of its own. Assuming that its “single girl” is not likely a wealthy girl, the book offers a flurry of tips about budgeting money, and saving it. (Need to stay in an apartment? Negotiate its rent. Need to fill its bland walls? Call airlines and ask them for promotional posters: They’ll be happy for the free publicity, and you’ll be happy for the free decor.) It offers advice about asking for a raise. At several points, its author endorses—another small radicalism—the benefits of psychotherapy.

Brown’s book debuted a year before Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique came along to argue that housewives, far from living the American dream, were living lives of tidy desperation. Both books took aim at marriage. Both spoke to a moment in which women’s options were so stridently assumed—the wedding, the kids, the making of homes, the keeping of them—that, for many, they ceased to be options at all. Before “family values” was partisan ideology, it was simply an inevitability. It implicated everyone. Sex might have had its pleasures, the logic went, but more important, it had its purpose—and that purpose was to make babies, and thereby make families, and thereby make a nation. Sex was social infrastructure. It ordered people, in every sense of the word. It was everyone’s business, even when it wasn’t.

Sex and the Single Girl rebels against all of that. In a culture that conflated sex and motherhood—each scripted as a gift given to others—Brown claimed to celebrate women’s sexuality on its own terms. That claim itself puts her book in loose conversation with feminist works of the era, among them Shulamith Firestone’s The Dialectic of Sex, Audre Lorde’s Uses of the Erotic: The Erotic as Power, and Anne Koedt’s The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm—the 1970 essay that introduced many people to the functions of the clitoris. Brown’s manual mocks one of the foundational myths of a patriarchal order: that women are sex’s passive recipients. It refuses to entertain mythologies that take men’s sexuality for granted and take women’s sexuality away. Brown’s insistence that sex is enjoyed by single women “to please themselves”—this was one battle in a wide-ranging war.

By Shulamith Firestone
Buy Book

But Brown fought for only some women. Sex and the Single Girl, written and published in the same decade that saw the March on Washington and the codification of the Civil Rights Act, ignores race as a dimension of women’s identity: It assumes its readers’ whiteness. It edits away all other modes of womanhood. The book, similarly, makes no space at all for sexual expression that is not zealously focused on men. (Brown, in the introduction to its 2003 reissue, tersely allows that lesbians exist, and then changes the subject.) And even among the women it does directly speak to—straight, white, financially comfortable enough to consider an empty wall to be a problem—the book’s talk of liberation often amounts to concession. Brown’s manual announced itself as a Samantha. In truth, it was a Charlotte.

The book’s original title was Sex for the Single Girl; that the final draft excised the crucial preposition is a clue to its pulled punches. “To be desired sexually, in my opinion, is about the best thing there is,” Brown said in a 1996 interview. Notice that sex itself is not the thing she is praising; being desired is. The book reflects that bias. In it, Brown mentions friends occasionally; she mentions family rarely; she mentions her husband, David—a handsome and wealthy Hollywood producer whom she snared, she writes, at the age of 37—all the time. Hers is a men-centric world. Brown chastises women who socialize at bars without man-snagging as their goal (“better they should be at home doing their double-chin exercises”). She touts the benefits, and the pleasures, of physical activity, but adds, “Men like sports; can you afford not to?” At one point: “If you adore your job, men or no men, stay.” At another: “It seems obvious to me that if you aren’t meeting any men through your job, you are in the wrong job.”

Brown’s blunt copy is false advertising. After a while, the carefree singlehood that she claims to be selling begins to look like drudgery. Spared of housework and care work, the women Brown imagines toil instead at the labor of sexual conquest. “If you would like the good single life—since the married life is not just now forthcoming,” she writes, “you can’t afford to leave any facet of you unpolished.” And she means it. Marriage, in this book about singleness, is merely replaced by a patriarchal arrangement of a different kind: women serving not their husbands but instead men more generally—men who will provide them the compliment, and the complement, of sexual attention.

Scholars and critics, over the years, have debated whether Brown should be considered a feminist. She herself claimed to be a “devout” one; a fuller answer might be had, though, in the fact that her advice to women guides them into deference. Men, in her book, are the subject and the object, the syntax and the punctuation—the omega but, more important, the alpha. Brown’s celebration of single women carries a two-word dedication: “To David.”

This is one of the elements of Sex and the Single Girl that gives it its new sobriety. Men as active, women as passive; men deciding, women accommodating: That was Brown’s cosmology. And soon, even more people will likely be forced into its physics. When men and women have sex that ends in a pregnancy, it will be the women who bear the burdens. When men rape women, it will be women who bear the consequences. Feminists fought for sex to be casual—not in the sense that it doesn’t mean anything, but in the sense that it should not mean everything. The world we are facing is one that is losing that fight. And it is the world that Helen Gurley Brown foresaw, precisely because of her limited vision: Men will do what they do. Everyone else will adjust accordingly.

O ne of the most powerful essays in the anthology Sex and the Single Woman resists that gravitational pull. “When a Man Isn’t a Man,” from the author Samantha Allen, considers one of the original book’s most odious moments: a passage advising readers on how they might interact with gay men. “How do you tell when a man isn’t a man?” Brown asks, and it may be the most wince-worthy line in a book that is full of them. From there, she explains how her “girls” might identify the gay men in their midst so that they might steer clear of them as romantic prospects and avoid investing in bonds with no return. (Though gay men do make, Brown allows, wonderful friends.)

Allen, a trans woman, does the kind of reading that befits a book like Sex and the Single Girl: She finds wisdom even in its regressions. She uses Brown’s treatment of queerness to consider how American society, 60 years later, still polices sex, sexuality, and gender identity. She describes her own feeling, earlier in life, that she had somehow betrayed straight women simply by being who she was: a man who wasn’t a man. Allen understood, because people like Brown repeated it so often, that “there weren’t enough quality straight men in the world to go around.” In a teeming dating economy fueled by purchases, exchanges, and returns, Allen was not the product that she was expected, and assumed, to be. She liked women; she was not a man. And yet she spent years seeing herself as an embodied market demand: “I owed it to women,” she writes, of the alleged shortage of men, “to at least try to be one of the good ones.”

Allen’s story, for now, has a happy ending. “​​My present is simple,” she writes: “I’m a woman married to a woman who’s attracted to women—a beautiful, parsimonious alignment of body and desire.” But she was one of the many people who, in a country that touts “the pursuit of happiness,” struggled to find that communion. Sex, wielded as a default organizing principle, can become its own form of oppression. “I might have failed the women who couldn’t tell right away that I wasn’t a man,” Allen writes, “but they were failed, too—we all were—by a discourse that told us sex and relationships were the essential project of early life, that we couldn’t imagine happiness that didn’t center around them.”

Brown is a bard of that discourse. And the glib contradictions of her book—her habit of promising freedoms in one sentence and revoking them in the next—read, ever more, as an omen. The looming fall of Roe v. Wade might well signal a threat to LGBTQ rights in general, and to same-sex marriage in particular. American states, still, are writing homophobia into their legal code. Politicians and pundits are expressing old bigotries through blatant slogans (“Don’t Say Gay”) and insidious lies. Some lawmakers are attempting to deny the rights—and, with them, the very existence—of trans people. Late last week, Texas’s Supreme Court decided that the state, contra a lower-court ruling, can investigate gender-affirming care for trans kids as child abuse.

Those developments are the result not just of incuriosity so extreme that it becomes cruelty but also of something more specific: the conviction that sex is not something to be discovered but something to be obeyed. Sexual expression, in this bleak vision, is imposed—by the Bible, by nature, by other people—and plays out as a series of shoulds. It should be heterosexual. It should be confined to marriage. It should result in children. It should give leeway to men; it should bind women. Any failure to abide by those standards should be legislated, and therefore punished, by the state.

The revolution that sought to free people from those confines never ended; in some sense it barely began. And now it might move in reverse, forced backward by those who fear others’ freedoms. Sex and the Single Girl understood the regressions because, in its roundabout way, it lived them out. It claimed to liberate women; it counseled them to live in thrall to men. It claimed to celebrate women’s pleasure; its primary concern was that women be pleasurable to other people. “The fact is, if you’re not a sex object, that’s when you have to worry,” Brown once said. In that sense, and that sense alone, today’s women have nothing to fear.

​When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

Bad title

The requested page title is invalid. It may be empty, contain unsupported characters, or include a non-local or incorrectly linked interwiki prefix. You may be able to locate the desired page by searching for its name (with the interwiki prefix, if any) in the search box.

Possible causes are:

• an attempt to load a URL such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/| (the | character is unsupported);
• an attempt to load a URL pointing to a «non-local» interwiki page (usually those not run by the Wikimedia Foundation). For example, the URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/meatball:WikiPedia will give this error, because the «meatball:» interwiki prefix is not marked as local in the interwiki table. Certain interwiki prefixes are marked as local in the table. For example, the URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/meta:Main_Page can be used to load meta:Main_Page. All interlanguage prefixes are marked as local, and thus URLs such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/fr:Accueil will work as expected. However, non-local interwiki pages can still be accessed by interwiki linking or by entering them in the search box. For example [[meatball:WikiPedia]] can be used on a page, like this: meatball:WikiPedia.

Retrieved from «https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Badtitle»

• Privacy policy
• About Wikipedia
• Disclaimers
• Contact Wikipedia
• Code of Conduct
• Developers
• Statistics
• Cookie statement
• Mobile view

Explore our full range of subscriptions.

For individuals
Discover all the plans currently available in your country
For multiple readers
Digital access for organisations. Includes exclusive features and content.
Check whether you already have access via your university or organisation.

See why over a million readers pay to read the Financial Times.

Sorry, this page could not be found.

The page you are looking for doesn’t exist, no longer exists or has been moved.

Our work includes fighting censorship, eliminating discrimination based on gender or sexual identity or family form, and protecting the right to engage in consensual sexual activity and expression. We do this through advocacy, education, and coalition building.

We are the only human rights organization working full time to protect the fundamental human right to sexual freedom.

The page you have requested can’t be found.

It looks like nothing was found at this location. Try searching for the content you are looking for.

• About Ms.
  • Ms. History
  • Masthead
  • Ms. Committee of Scholars
  • Internships
  • Get Ms.
  • Give the Gift of Ms.
  • Manage Your Ms. Membership
  • Support Ms.
  • Newsletters
  • Back Issues
  • Store
  • Media Center
  • Writing for Ms.
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise with Ms.
  • Feminist Majority Foundation
  • Feminist Campus
  • Girls Learn International

  Copyright © 2024 Ms. Magazine

  • Terms of Use
  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy

  Ms. is wholly owned and published by the Feminist Majority Foundation

  Freedom sex

  Login

  • Home
  • History & Society
  • Science & Tech
  • Biographies
  • Animals & Nature
  • Geography & Travel
  • Arts & Culture
  • Money
  • Games & Quizzes
  • Videos
  • On This Day
  • One Good Fact
  • Dictionary
  • New Articles
  • Lifestyles & Social Issues
  • Philosophy & Religion
  • Politics, Law & Government
  • World History
  • Health & Medicine
  • Science
  • Technology
  • Browse Biographies
  • Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
  • Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
  • Environment
  • Fossils & Geologic Time
  • Mammals
  • Plants
  • Geography & Travel
  • Entertainment & Pop Culture
  • Literature
  • Sports & Recreation
  • Visual Arts
  • Companions
  • Demystified
  • Image Galleries
  • Infographics
  • Lists
  • Podcasts
  • Spotlight
  • Summaries
  • The Forum
  • Top Questions
  • #WTFact
  • 100 Women
  • Britannica Kids
  • Saving Earth
  • Space Next 50
  • Student Center

  The Problem With Being Cool About Sex

  Half a century after the sexual revolution, a new generation of feminists understands that we still haven’t reconciled what we should want with what we do want.

  September 3, 2021
  Share
  Save

  Illustration by Vartika Sharma; source: Alberto Rizzo / Getty

  T racy Clark-Flory’s memoir , Want Me, is subtitled A Sex Writer’s Journey Into the Heart of Desire, and it begins with an arresting anecdote: Two male porn actors on a set in Los Angeles are complaining to her about “girls these days.” One actor is called Tommy Gunn, because where would pornography be without puns? The other uses his birth name, Charles Dera. Both agree that their love lives have suffered because too many women watch their films and demand a live-action replay, expecting to be choked, gagged, and slapped around. But who wants to take their work home with them? “It’s, like, not even my cup of tea,” Dera tells Clark-Flory, who covered the sex beat for Salon and is now a senior writer at Jezebel. “I want to go to dinner and have a fucking nice meal and take it from there. Where the ladies at anymore?”

  The scene is irresistibly bathetic, in the vein of Tarantino hit men bitching about junk food, but it’s also revealing. For many people under 40, the tropes of internet porn have saturated our lives and colored our expectations of sex. For “YouPorn natives”—the 20-somethings for whom abundant free porn has always existed, on smartphones as well as computers—the effect is even more extreme. Their first glimpse of sexual activity was probably not the descriptions in Lady Chatterley’s Lover, the hippie illustrations in The Joy of Sex, or (as it was for Clark-Flory) the glamorous Jenna Jameson adult movies of the ’90s, but the rough, dirty, extreme porn of the free internet. Some of them no doubt saw a digital gang bang before having their first real-life kiss.

  Porn consumption is now such a fixture of modern life—there is no chance the American government will take your smut away—that space has opened up to question its effects without being dismissed as a wannabe censor. Which isn’t to say that admitting to reservations about current sexual trends is easy. For Clark-Flory’s 30-something generation (which is also my generation), being Cool About Sex is a mark of our impeccable social liberalism. If two or more adults consent to it, whatever it is, no one else is entitled to an opinion.

  Yet here is the conundrum facing feminist writers: Our enlightened values—less stigma regarding unwed mothers, the acceptance of homosexuality, greater economic freedom for women, the availability of contraception, and the embrace of consent culture—haven’t translated into anything like a paradise of guilt-free fun. The sexual double standard still exists, and girls who say no are still “frigid” while those who say yes are still “sluts.” Some men still act with entitlement, while others feel that, no matter what they do, they are inescapably positioned as the “bad guys” by the new sexual rules. Half a century after the sexual revolution and the start of second-wave feminism, why are the politics of sex still so messy, fraught, and contested?

  Our language still lacks the words to describe the many varieties of bad sex that do not rise to the criminal standard of rape or assault.

  Relitigating the sex wars of the 1970s and ’80s is hardly where young feminists expected, or want, to be. In The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century, Amia Srinivasan confesses her reluctance to cover second-wave criticisms of porn in the feminist-theory course she teaches at Oxford. She is Cool About Sex, after all, and assumed that her students would be bored by the question of whether porn oppresses women. She also assumed that the reputation of “anti-porn feminists,” such as Catharine A. MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, had been fatally damaged by their alliance with the religious right to pass laws restricting access to pornography. What self-respecting member of Generation Z would want to line up alongside Jerry Falwell Sr. and Phyllis Schlafly, particularly when the other side is selling a fantasy of libertine pleasure?

  Yet her class was “riveted,” she observes in “Talking to My Students About Porn,” the longest essay in her collection. Their enthusiasm was so great that it made her reconsider her own diffidence. The exchange is worth quoting at length:

  Could it be that pornography doesn’t merely depict the subordination of women, but actually makes it real, I asked? Yes, they said. Does porn silence women, making it harder for them to protest against unwanted sex, and harder for men to hear those protests? Yes, they said. Does porn bear responsibility for the objectification of women, for the marginalization of women, for sexual violence against women? Yes, they said, yes to all of it.

  It wasn’t just the women students talking; the men were saying yes as well, in some cases even more emphatically … My male students complained about the routines they were expected to perform in sex; one of them asked whether it was too utopian to imagine sex was loving and mutual and not about domination and submission.

  Srinivasan’s students echo the porn actors: poor old Tommy Gunn and friends, desperate to enjoy a romantic evening of pizza and small talk, and instead feeling obligated to try fisting. Having grown up with the all-you-can-eat buffet of internet porn, these young people pine for romance and intimacy—experiences that require the full and enthusiastic participation of another human being. That theme is taken up by another contemporary feminist author, Katherine Angel, in her book Tomorrow Sex Will Be Good Again: Women and Desire in the Age of Consent. The “rubric of consent,” Angel writes, is not “sufficient for thinking about sex.” We also need to consider the cultural scripts we have all absorbed, she argues—including the ubiquitous images of porn, the choreographed moves and expectations, the power relations. A narrow focus on consent assumes too much of us, because “we don’t always know and can’t always say what we want.”

  Clark-Flory also voices disappointment when she realizes how thoroughly the tropes of porn sex have wormed their way into her head. Even when she is fulfilling her greatest fantasy—real-life sex with her favorite porn star, whom she meets in a bar—she feels like a spectator of her own experiences, which clouds her ability to get lost in the moment. Susan Sontag once wrote that photography had become a way of “refusing experience”; porn has become a way of refusing intimacy. Its keenest consumers are so steeped in performative sex that they can’t just look at their partner. The imaginary audience won’t leave the bedroom.

  The chasm between what we say and what we do has always made sex an irresistible topic. These books have been written in the shadow of #MeToo, and their authors dwell on the contradictions surfaced by that movement: Being available for sex is the mark of a liberated woman, but so is the ability to refuse it. Srinivasan observes that, for all our permissiveness, our language still lacks the words to describe the many varieties of bad sex that do not rise to the criminal standard of rape or assault. “A woman going on with a sex act she no longer wants to perform, knowing she can get up and walk away but knowing at the same time that this will make her a blue-balling tease, an object of male contempt: there is more going on here than mere ambivalence, unpleasantness and regret,” she writes. “There is also a kind of coercion … the informal regulatory system of gendered sexual expectations.”

  Those expectations inflect a woman’s “yes” as well as her “no.” Like Clark-Flory, Angel begins her narrative with a vignette from the world of porn. A young woman—Girl X—arrives at the home of the porn actor James Deen to participate in “Do a Scene With James Deen,” a reality-television-style stunt in which the porn actor solicits applications from his fans to have sex with him on camera. “It is mostly a long, flirtatious, fraught conversation, which circles repeatedly back to whether or not they are going to do this: have sex, film it, and put it online,” Angel writes. The young woman’s reluctance is only partly feigned. She is deciding, right then and there, if she wants to be seen naked on the internet, forever, an object of desire as well as derision. Some men will masturbate to her; others will despise her. Some will do both. In a sense, as Angel notes, the scene dramatizes “the double bind in which women exist: that saying no may be difficult, but so too is saying yes.”

  What’s more, desire makes hypocrites of us all. Srinivasan reports that some of the feminists who watched the hard-core slideshows prepared by Women Against Pornography as part of its tours of Times Square in the 1970s were turned on, rather than repulsed, by the abhorrent filth they were there to condemn. Clark-Flory recounts taking refuge from the horror of her mother’s terminal cancer in rough, degrading sex, uncomfortably aware that she was enacting everything those dried-up old second-wavers claimed was true about BDSM—that only people who hate themselves hurt themselves. In a similar vein, Srinivasan quotes the transgender theorist Andrea Long Chu, who has confessed that she transitioned in part to wear tight little Daisy Duke shorts and experience the “benevolent chauvinism” of being bought dinner. “Now you begin to see the problem with desire,” Chu has written. “We rarely want the things we should.”

  But how much do culture and politics shape those wants? Porn-aggregator sites, to take one example, use algorithms, just like the rest of the internet. Pornhub pushes featured videos and recommendations, optimized to build user loyalty and increase revenue, which carry the implicit message that this is what everyone else finds arousing—that this is the norm. Compare porn with polarized journalism, or even fast food: How can we untangle what people “really want” from what they are offered, over and over, and from what everyone else is being offered too? No one’s sexual desires exist in a vacuum, immune to outside pressures driven by capitalism. (Call it the invisible hand job of the market.)

  Little wonder, then, that these writers are all interested in how malleable sexual desire might be, and that they veer away from tidy prescriptions to fix “problematic” sex. Even as the cerebral Srinivasan subtly unpacks the public meaning of private acts, she sees “no laws to draft, no easy curriculums to roll out.” In a raw, gonzo style, Clark-Flory asks how she can pursue “the right to be sexual” in a world where “women’s desire is narrowed to being desired.” Meanwhile, Angel borrows her ironic title from the great theorist of power Michel Foucault, joining him in mocking the idea that political liberation will usher in a world of angst-free sex. United by a refusal to offer sweeping answers, these writers are honest about the clash between our political pronouncements and our revealed preferences.

  We are well used to the idea that today’s sexual scripts aren’t working for women, who feel under pressure to be as waxed and compliant as the MILFs of Pornhub. But what about men? “Surely we have to say something about the political formation of male desire,” Srinivasan writes. In different ways, these books explore the idea that, while the traditional model of heterosexual-sex-as-domination might work for the alphas—the Silvio Berlusconis and Donald Trumps and Hugh Hefners (although even that is arguable)—it has caused widespread discontent among other men. Most people are not sociopathic slaves to their libido, and most men, when having sex with a woman, would like her to enjoy it too.

  Yet sex involves physical and psychological exposure, which brings with it the possibility of rejection, or ridicule, or failure to perform. Masculinity is associated in our culture with strength and invulnerability, so if sex makes some men afraid, it shouldn’t be surprising that they also struggle to recognize and deal with that fear, and that such emotions are sublimated into the tropes of pornography. “Heterosexual men get to work out, here, the aggression they feel towards their own weakness, towards their own vulnerability to desire,” Angel writes.

  And this may be why desire, a troubling symbol of the loss of control, gets refigured so insistently as triumph over the woman; as denigration of her; as humiliation of her. These are the ideals of mastery and power with which men punish women, but also themselves.

  The most misogynistic porn is a displacement of anxiety into a fantasy of control: Guys who choke bitches don’t secretly worry that they can’t get it up.

  That fantasy of control raises a question addressed by Srinivasan in the title essay of her book. Do we have a right to sex—a question implicitly understood to mean Do men have a right to sex? (Few women pay for sex, and even fewer carry out mass murders because they feel they are denied it.) She discusses the case of Elliot Rodger, who went on a shooting spree in Isla Vista, California, in 2014. Rodger was a mixed-race nerd, and his violence was driven by his internet-fueled belief that he was, in the words of his manifesto, “cast out and rejected, forced to endure an existence of loneliness and insignificance, all because the females of the human species were incapable of seeing the value in me.”

  Srinivasan believes “that no one is obliged to desire anyone else, that no one has a right to be desired,” but she tries to feel empathy for Rodger, or at least for “the kind of diagnosis Rodger offered, in which racism and the norms of heteromasculinity placed him beyond desirability.” She is right to observe that our beauty standards reflect other inequalities. The dating site OkCupid reported in 2014, for example, that Black women received far fewer matches than white women did from white, Asian, and Latino men, a disparity driven presumably by what Srinivasan calls “sexual racists.”

  Yet the difficulty of reconciling her two positions—sexual boundaries are sacrosanct at an individual level, but racist (or transphobic, or ableist) at a population level—is one of the reasons Srinivasan appends a 30-page “coda” to her 19-page original essay. At times, you sense her utopian yearning to dissolve these contradictions: If only good liberals found everybody equally attractive. “Must the transformation of desire be a disciplinary project (willfully altering our desires in line with our politics)—or can it be an emancipatory one (setting our desires free from politics)?” she asks. A more fundamental question might be: To what extent is that transformation even possible? Sexual desire has an evolutionary purpose; we don’t know how susceptible it is to conscious rewiring.

  All three writers focus largely on sex between men and women, because analyzing the power differences and historical baggage involved strikes them as important. And they write unashamedly from a female perspective: Aside from its biological and cultural meanings, woman now often stands in for “person who talks openly about sex.” On social media, women cheerfully objectify the hot duke from Bridgerton and members of the Korean boy band BTS, while a man talking about female tennis players in similar terms would get pilloried as sexist. The Updike/Roth era is truly dead: We are primed to dismiss discussion of male desire as either locker-room vulgarity or pathetic neediness.

  Yet sex is something we need to talk about honestly, and seriously, without shame or awkwardness, because it is tied up with fundamental questions about the relationship between the individual and society. What should another person, or society as a whole, tolerate to make us feel good? Can we shape our sexualities to match our politics, or are we condemned to perpetual hypocrisy once the bedroom door is closed? Is sex most usefully thought of as a physical need, like breathing; as a human right, like freedom of speech; as a spiritual connection that takes on full meaning only if it’s part of a relationship; or even, as Clark-Flory describes her night with the porn star, as simply like “bungee jumping, an adrenalizing physical feat”? Can rules made by believers in one of these frameworks be applied to those operating under another?

  No, tomorrow sex will not be good again. As long as some people have more money, options, and power than others do; as long as reproductive labor falls more heavily on one half of the population; as long as cruelty, shame, and guilt are part of the human experience; as long as other people remain mysterious to us—and as long as our own desires remain mysterious too—sex will not be good, not all the time. We will never simply want the things we should.

  This article appears in the October 2021 print edition with the headline “Where Is Our Paradise of Guilt-Free Sex?”

  Freedom Sex Порно Видео

  Pornhub предоставляет вам неограниченное количество бесплатных порно видео с самыми горячими исполнителями XXX. Enjoy the largest amateur porn community on the net as well as full-length scenes from the top XXX studios. We update our porn videos daily to ensure you always get the best quality sex movies.

  • Информация
  • Карта сайта
  • Условия пользования
  • Уведомление о Конфиденциальности
  • DMCA
  • 2257
  • EU DSA
  • Рекомендации по рекомендательной системе
  • Cookie Notice
  • Сотрудничайте с нами
  • Партнеры Содержимого
  • Разместить рекламу
  • Вебмастерам
  • Программа Моделей
  • Пресса
  • Поддержка и помощь
  • Удаление контента
  • Связаться со службой поддержки
  • FAQ
  • Доверие и Безопасность
  • Родительский Контроль
  • Отзывы
  • Находите новое
  • Блог Pornhub
  • Аналитика: блог
  • Центр Сексуального Благополучия
  • Мобильный контент
  • Для Слабовидящих
  • Audio Impaired

  Источники:

  https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2022/05/sex-and-the-single-girl-manual-roe/629868/&rut=edcf486a95fd2c049248bcec9efe8a5e9e75c9fee51153c42c22fa9c500739df
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_sexuality&rut=dc316c51619d630efeb28175b8362a089d6ea0a8001a23bc9b04cd8972d8010b
  https://www.ft.com/content/012d4edc-40ee-11e9-9499-290979c9807a&rut=cd6cab7ac97105246a59cfdba63a4942756ac1252c546974bbc397ad4b61cba8
  https://www.woodhullfoundation.org/about-us/what-is-sexual-freedom/&rut=b0d8b1fa1b222dbe41a529b8b27fa0be327cef14401cd6e2b010a57b37be60ba
  https://msmagazine.com/2020/08/12/tools-of-the-patriarchy-the-weaponization-of-sexual-freedom/&rut=e2fdbc2a614dc06c2ffb1d70baf6e1400a6126a2e32fba7a2ebee641ee272406
  https://www.britannica.com/topic/sexual-freedom&rut=f5f87df978263a0bd349c4272e110715522afcf03edf528c2ad9947cb6b5a094
  https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/10/feminism-sex-clark-flory-srinivasan-angel/619822/&rut=6a6e60dce401b526114bdea6d9b12f5bb634ceba3b4efac6f5c51397819be0ed
  https://www.pornhub.com/video/search?search=freedom+sex&rut=b0ff1d0bcb04c819a651b77876fd343b714b97701d746b2bbe4913ad04952b9f