I think you would like the interview on youtube with Mary Harrington on "Rewilding Sex". A lot of common sense. This is not answering any question, but an observation: i feel like, for me, public high school was a grooming institution. Once i was out of high school, i had a good idea that i wanted something different. Married at 21, 8 babies over the next 18 years...What i wanted wasn't to be desired. That is no prize. It was to be respected and cherished.
I will absolutely look up that interview, I love Mary! I think the same about public high school-I came out of it with not such a clear vision, a binge drinking problem and a drug dealer porn addicted boyfriend, so I clearly wholeheartedly agree. I think the desire to be desired is just the root of the same-that desire to be cherished and respected, as it all starts with desire-which is what I attempted to get at here but may have failed! What a beautiful life it sounds like you have made for yourself! I would love to have that many children, we shall see if it is in the cards ♥️
Powerful! I am from a family of 8 children back in the 50’s and 60’s. Dad was a pastor, and Mom was sensitive to the occasional comments from other women about the size of our family. Mom was always calm, pleasant, and very slow to anger, but VERY sensitive to this criticism. I graphically recall her beet red face on day after returning from a woman’s group of the church ( of an otherwise very pleasant congregation) when she came home VERY upset and angry after evidently hearing a flip comment from a couple of women about the number of children in her family. She responded by “laying them low” and walking out.
OOF sis, this was a tough read! Thank you for writing it but I had to fight tears a few times. This brokenness in our culture is so real😭
In the 60s, the Catholic Church released a text called Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life), saying that we must stand firm against the embracing of birth control, that it will have many negative effects if allowed to widely take hold. Notably, there was an emphasis on the valuing of women:
“A man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman… and reduce her to a mere instrument of his own desires."
Many Catholics brushed it aside (and embraced contraception) as a sign that the Church was out of touch. Now one could argue of course that men never revered women, to which I’d say sure, but has the widespread use of contraception has made this better or worse for us? I know this is a hard topic but I do feel the Church had/has real, deep wisdom to share here, namely that we cannot act as if sex is not sacred, that is it not both a spiritual act of love but also, flowing from that love, a creative one as well.
Re: the Mary Wollstonecraft quote — one of the things I love the MOST about practicing fertility awareness in our marriage is that my husband must practice chastity! The burden doesn’t fall on me: he is also responsible for the fact that sex is procreative. He is involved and aware of where I’m at in my cycle and it’s something we track together. An unexpected beautiful benefit of this type of “birth control” has been the deep connection and unity forged between us around the honoring of what sex really is. I’m reading The Rights of Women (all about MW) and it’s shocking how spot-on the ideas were in early feminism around this topic and others!
More thoughts but that’s all I have time to share now — looking forward to the coming posts as I love Louise’s work but actually haven’t read her book!
That’s quite a line from that text! I have heard of it but didn’t know much about it. One would hope that there is some truth to it and that men (at least some men) hold some reverence for us. But yes I do think that regardless to whatever truth or non-truth that statement holds, that the question you ask about the widespread use of contraception is the one to ask. I think by and large when we meddle in matters of life it just always has physical and social and emotional and spiritual consequences.
And also there is the fact that women have always meddled in these matters-hormonal contraceptives and IUDS and plan B pills and legalized abortion or not. The consequences remain either way. I do think the the societal attitude toward sex that took such a shift due to hormonal BC paired with the actual physiological impact it has on us is a net negative.
I think your comments about Wollstonecraft and your relationship with fertility awareness and your husband is really beautiful! I think when we are forced to confront and reckon with the weight of what sex is and also to abstain when necessary it really holds a potentiality for a deepening of the male and female relationship and your words here are a testament to that!
Keep in mind that the Vatican also opposed, and still opposes, even condoms. Because reasons. Or something. They also oppose masturbation as well as any sex act other that PIV coitus as well. Also because reasons. There is a reason their preferred family planning method is sometimes called "Vatican Roulette", lol.
And I'm glad you're reading Bachiochi's book 'The Rights of Women'! Such a fascinating one that pairs extremely helpfully with Louise Perry and Mary Harrington's work.
Powerful observations, recollections, and thoughts, and I bow to your professional choice as an English teacher!
Five decades ago when I was majoring in philosophy, I became aware from my friends in your discipline of the load of the number and depth of papers they had to write, and I certainly had great respect for those students and your rigorous discipline!
Where Vatican Roulette really sets both genders up to fail (by design) is where they also prohibit either the man OR the woman from obtaining release by any other means (such as taking matters into their own hands, lol) at a time when women's sexual desire is the greatest of all, and may not necessarily take "NO" for an answer, lol. A fertility awareness method that DOES allow for such alternative activities and releases, while still not perfect, is head and shoulders above Vatican Roulette.
I mean, most women (like 80%) actually either prefer non-penetrative sex or have no strong preference either way. There's a reason why a women's primary pleasure organ is on the outside, lol. It's almost like the Goddess actually WANTS it that way.
Thing is though, men have been doing exactly that since before Jehovah had witnesses. They were just much more hypocritical about it before. Especially with all the scandals that have come out in the wash since then.
I learned the hard way. With my first marriage (only 4 years and no children) blasting this truth straight through me. He wanted to be polyamorous… after having a catholic wedding, me being the catholic marrying a non catholic… thinking I could convert him. It was painful 4 years, me always twisting my body into what he wanted me to be… nearly getting breast implants! But then I had this clarity and left him. I moved to Ireland, married my now husband (we have 4 kids and raising them in our joined Catholic faith) I received an annulment and have been humbled through it all. I am so aware of how difficult it is to be a girl and young woman in this perverse society… and am very focused on modesty and courage with my girls.
Thanks for this writing… hard truth about the reality behind the exotic sexual lifestyles, that shapes so much of media
Thank you for sharing this vulnerability Katie. I truly think the fact that polyamory is trending in the way it is is such a curious thing. People argue that it is human nature but then why is jealously and the need for stability and a sense of secureness also human nature? These things simply cannot exist in the same container, and anyone who tries to convince us otherwise is a manipulative delusional. The want for sexual novelty does not trump the NEED for relational integrity and security, especially when children are involved.
I am happy for you that you found your way out and came to your current life- four babies in Ireland sounds lovely. Thank you for reading ♥️
With all due respect, it is probably best to think of (non-)monogamy as a spectrum rather than a binary, and to think of monogamy as a conscious choice, not a default state. Neither monogamy nor non-monogamy are for everyone, as everyone is different.
(As sex therapist Dr. Marty Klein would say to those who claim these things cannot exist in the same container as it were, tell that to the millions of couples who happily swing every month.)
We can argue till we are blue in the face whether monogamy or non-monogamy is truly natural, as it were. (See "Sex at Dawn" (2010) by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha, and the controversy surrounding it for example.) Ditto for jealousy as well, and all the complexity that entails. But at base, there are three kinds of monogamy: strict, lifelong, and universal. Pick two out of three, because that is all that Mother Nature and the iron laws of supply and demand will allow.
As for jealousy, one could argue that (strict) monogamy "flattens the curve" of jealousy, to put it in the lingua franca of the 2020s. Granted. But the area under the curve likely remains the same at least in the long run, as that green-eyed monster will still be there. Note that Dr. James W. Prescott observed that societies that do NOT enforce monogamy are actually less violent overall than those that do.
And finally, as with anything else, journeys are usually much more dangerous than destinations regardless.
The devil will always attack the church, and it has since the beginning… the belief in Jesus, his living presence in the Eucharist etc that Catholics (and myself) believe in- does not mean everything that has ever occurred under that institution is approved of. Very evil things exist in the institution and every institution. However once you fully understand “the fall” you truly discover the need for our Redeemer and the truth. The last thing the devil wants is for souls to be Catholic… and have a pathway to heaven… so therefore darkness seeps into it on earth, it is spiritual warfare. Do not throw the baby out with the bath water as I like to say. Jesus has never left us
I wholeheartedly agree that the way we currently are dealing with sex is disastrous, especially for women, for girls. However, I wholeheartedly do not want to return to the shameful past approach to sex, in which women were *very* disproportionally held responsible for being chaste, and thus were held to such unrealistic and unhealthy standards, ie women as not sexual at all.
I long for a healthy approach to sexuality, where sex is re-enchanted, where sex is a big deal, where youth are taught its importance and its magnitude. I do think that the approach to sex and sexuality should be different for young men and women, because we are different after all. But I don’t want young women to bear the brunt of responsibility and stigma. We can and should teach them how sex disproportionally affects women, in a way that is wholesome and reverent of their power for bringing life into the world.
Clara I wholeheartedly agree with you on almost all of this. I think the only point I’m coming up against is women not bearing the brunt of the responsibility that accompanies sexuality. Not because I want that for women and girls, more that that is just an objective fact to a point. Women bear the brunt because we make the life.
This is where my affinity for cycle charting and fertility awareness and these things being taught alongside basic menstrual knowledge around the age of menarche comes into play. It’s a tool, yes, but also a lesson in the power of our female physicality, and one that can then lend itself to that re-enchanting of sex. Not to say young men shouldn’t be held to certain standards or shouldn’t be given similar knowledge for themselves and also about female physiology, just that there are certain biological realities females must deal with.
Indeed, we should not blame the victim as it were, nor put an undue burden on women. But the fact remains that expecting men to be the gatekeepers of sex is like letting the fox guard the henhouse, and such a "reverse double standard" where the duty of care is placed entirely on men is also just as unrealistic and problematic.
Enthusiastic consent (not mere grudging "consent"), while not perfect, nonetheless covers a lot more ground that those who knock the idea seem to realize. If it's not a HELL YEAH, it's a NO. Yes, there are other dimensions to sexual ethics as well: mutuality, honesty. respect, dignity, empathy and so on. The categorical imperative per Immanuel Kant (if he wasn't so antisexual!) comes to mind, as does the Golden, Silver, and Platinum Rules. And there are a lot of gray areas in these other dimensions.
Wow Kat! So your position apparently is since I am a male I therefore have no right and no place to enter into a dialogue about this very interesting subject? I had a wonderful mother, and I have a wonderful wife of over 46 years of marriage, four younger sisters, several aunts, two grandmothers, and I raised a son and three daughters and am involved with four grandchildren, two of which are female, I attended schools and universities for decades surrounded be male and female teachers and professors who mentored me, I worked with many women, and managed a long list of both men and women in the several business careers I managed.
So the point of your position I have nothing to offer or reflect about in this important discussion is frankly absurd and fallacious in your assumptions!
Clara, the disproportionate responsibility between males and females is a conversation I personally find very frustrating, because I WANT it to be equivalently balanced. But the reality is that it just isn't. A man will NEVER stand in the place of physically conceiving and containing another human, so the weight of responsibility associated with sex will always feel one body removed from him even if he is choosing responsibility. He has the ability to choose between not assuming and assuming responsibility for life, while a woman can only truly sidestep responsibility for life by altering her body in some way.
The past for women was terrible, the current situation for women is terrible, and young women have to be TAUGHT about how sex is fun but also wholesome but also serious but also seriously hurts them but also...?
Do men have to be taught anything? They are the origin of the problem here. Who controls the systems of power that make this true?
Who paid for the prostitutes in the first place and caused the pregnancies that led to the bones underneath them?
Who controls the religions, political systems, educational systems that kept women out and put them in these situations?
Actually yes, sex is all of those things. Because it is an act attached to human beings and all of the complexities that come along with our individual desires and limits and personalities and experiences. And yes, girls should be taught that. So should boys.
One of the most striking experiences of my youth was watching my girlfriends grapple with their feelings for men they insisted were “just f*** buddies.” It’s like women our age always felt like we weren’t allowed to be committed. My girlfriends thought I was prude because I didn’t want to be totally casually not-dating (“hanging out with”) two men at once, and I wasn’t even sleeping with either at the time. That was always so striking to me. There was a distinct attitude in the culture I grew up that sex was meant to be fun and free and casual, and you settled down when you were “ready” and had “lived a little.” What a trail of heartbreak and soundings those lies have left in their wake.
I’m not sure your age but I have I feeling we likely grew up around the same time with the same messaging because I had similar experiences-both witnessed and personal. I always think about Sex and the City when this topic comes up because it’s such a prime example of how this attitude was just completely pushed on us.
Emily, thank you for this epic read. Your writing is deeply inspiring and always takes me somewhere I've been wanting to go. This is a piece to return to again and again.
Thank you Stephanie! It’s always exciting to get comments on things I published a while ago as well, by the way, glad they still have a little life left in them.
Learned the hard way, and later than most ( blame the tick of my biological clock…)and now having to struggle with the feeling of stupidity and wasted years, as my fertility and his testosterone drop drastically…
Learned many lessons but wouldn’t ever recommend learning that way, the scars hurt too much.
I have been waiting eagerly for this post from you! And then it came out and I told myself I had to finish a Substack letter of my own before I got to come indulge here...look how long that's taken and now I'm late to the discussion.
It was interesting to me to read Louise Perry's book in conjunction with Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, especially with what looks like two separate ideologies each leading to the same outcome: the commodification of human sexuality.
As a child, the communities in which I grew up frequently highlighted examples of immorality and censured female sexuality rather aggressively. Biological information about male and female sexuality and its accompanying dynamics was, unsurprisingly, in short supply. I ended up swinging to the other extreme for a bit, trying to connect with my inner casual cool girl, and found that the "cool girl" I was trying to be actually wasn't cool at all, in any sense of the word. While I wouldn't say I feel any particular shame about my forays across the other end of the spectrum, I'm also acutely aware of the lifelong consequences of how I held my own sexuality both in repressing and indulging. Both were informative phases, but they left powerful imprints.
In my opinion, the damage hasn't changed, we just have technology to remove us from physically witnessing the consequences. The infant bodies accumulated under brothels are a painful reality of sex commodified without relationship; women and our children pay the highest price for this, at least physically. But now we have birth control and IUDs to mask the physical consequences to our fertility (eliminating the unpleasant vision of the bodies of unwanted babies) and cultural inputs that allow us to mask the emotional consequences (orientation towards consumerism as emotional fulfillment, a continual turntable of digital voices creating echo chambers, and the ever widening cabinet of pharmaceutical options for blunting mental anguish). "Things are not good just because some of us say they are." Back again to Margaret Atwood: "Better never means better for everyone... It always means worse for some."
I love that you point out the interrelatedness of disenchantment in birth and disenchantment in sex. One of the most unexpected correlations I've come up against in birth work is with mothers (and fathers) who are deeply disconnected from the pleasure and physiology of their sexuality; in my experience this almost always pairs with a neglect of fundamental personal needs, more resistance and less adaptability to the challenges of parenting, and more difficulty in accepting birth as a transformative experience. All anecdotal experience, of course, but to me the connection is very real, and I see a fairly consistent pattern between particular birth and postpartum complications and this disconnect from/disenchantment of healthy sexuality on an individual level. Not to mention that disenchantment with parenting also seems to be a tangible outworking of this sexual disenchantment.
I'm curious about the reality that might unfold if even a small percentage of women stopped negotiating their own sexuality behind a facade of low investment. Granted, returning to eras of vilifying feminine sexuality isn't progress at all, but neither is this contemporary version where there is a steady pressure to become desirable by becoming sexually available while also remaining emotionally detached. Progress is only progress if it proceeds with deepening human connection.
Disturbing to learn about the babies bones found indicating a brothel by archeologists. Yeah, many men do not care about the chastity of women. I believe there are some out there who do. I hope. Too much value is placed on sex. There is a time and place. Why aren't men and women more concerned regarding developing talents and abilities versus focusing on the sex. Men are the worst I have to admit when it comes to sex. A person has to set their boundaries and live them. The value system is upside down for sure. Even if a person feels like they want sex they do not have to go for it. Just keep it under control by not engaging. Do not let men use you.
I think the sexual impulse is simple human nature and there is nothing wrong with prioritizing and pursuing it, alongside many other aspects of life. These things can co-exist easily and well. There is a self-restraint problem in our culture however, and currently this applies to both men and women, and is to the detriment of both-which is why I choose to talk about this and am showcasing Perry’s work on the topic, it is a much needed conversation.
Yes Emily, I agree the human sexual impulse is human nature; it is a life giving river that can also overrun the banks and cause great destruction when people forget about consequences of conservation, which has taken place in my lifetime! Thank you for bringing bringing clarity and attention back to this most important and vital issue!
I see. Well, I am old fashioned in that I think people should wait till married. Not that it's realistic. I am and have been chaste actually, by my own choice. I have chosen not to be promiscuous. It's a personal choice. Someone will get hurt and does get hurt if things of this nature are not kept within bounds. The men usually play the devil's advocate and ruin the woman's life. I'd rather that women protect themselves from such unnecessary heartbreak.
I suppose I think there is a lot of nuance and balance that needs to be considered and also consider sex to be something we are literally made to engage in, and also something that abstaining from at times is necessary.
It really hit me that I think we might have lived a similar life. I took had those bangs. I too found things online as the very first generation and that my parents had no idea of. I was groomed online so early that I learned no boundaries to protect myself. I never considered that my life may have been better 80 years earlier because of the endless repetition of our freedoms and choices. And our mothers were happy for us because they did not know our suffering and they should we were free from sexual shame which they had suffered from. I wish somebody had protected me.
Does anybody really want to address the main cause and the origin of all of these problems--male behavior?
I see a lot of hand-wringing and whining about women, what we do, how we need to protect/avoid/change/not wear short skirts--why? What is the origin of all of these problems?
Who caused all of the pregnancies that led to babies' bones under brothels? Who paid to sexually use those prostitutes, then probably went home and maybe beat their more morally deserving wives (legally of course)? Who dominated the systems of power and purposefully kept women out of economics/education/social power? Who is the problem here?
Does anybody want to talk about that without "But it's NOT ALL men!" or "You're just a hater!" or "Stop waging a gEnDeR WaR!" or "My husband never beat the shit out of me!"
Are many people really willing to be honest about males as the origin of all of this?
Did you actually read the entire piece? Maybe take a look at the the Mary Wollstonecraft quote in the beginning. I am speaking to these exact things, maybe in a less vitriolic manner which considers how men are also negatively impacted by current societal attitudes, but male behavior is absolutely up for discussion here. I have lots of interest in evolutionary psychology and looking into that realm demands an objective understanding of human nature, which is much of what you bring up here.
I also believe men have the capability to practice self restraint and use that to the benefit of all people, I don’t see them as inherently bad. Perhaps inherently prone to violence, yes, but that is purposeful at it’s root. It’s a matter of honing our natural proclivities and instilling virtues into ourselves-both men and women.
You won’t see me denying the horrors of male violence and control over women through history. I have suffered at the hands of men many times over. I also am raising a son with a man I love and was raised myself by a good man. We have to be able to hold it all.
I also understand that yes, men have held power over women historically but I also think often the power of women in history is undersold and it is to the detriment of us today. The constant mention of how hard we had it in the public sphere while simultaneously completely ignoring the power women held in the private realm is just another way women of today indulge in victimhood mentality.
Perfect response! I think playing the blame game on one sex or the other is insincere and a cop out! This a a societal movement born of all that you have so brilliantly identified and embraced! Thank you!
Yeah, you're right. A male who lives in Iceland (a country where women have gained the most power in society) has the exact same life as a female in Afghanistan (where men have gained the most power).
It's totally comparable how men act and have acted throughout history, and the physical, legal, and economic power that males have wielded over females purposefully is JUST LIKE what females have done.
So INSINCERE! What a COP OUT!
It's not my job to give you an education in legal, world, and economic history. Men are delusional and incapable of self-awareness and shame.
Interesting, Icelanders probably have one of the very few true "hookup cultures" in the entire world. Other Nordic countries do to some extent, of course, but the Anglosphere and especially here in the USA? No, what we have here is a schizoid culture of negativity towards sex and relationships more generally.
Wow, thanks for your sarcasm; at least it indicates you DO have a semblance of a sense of humor!
Unfortunately, you dodged the issue entirely by still playing the blame game against one gender entirely, which of course you must be completely correct in sticking to it since, “it’s the patriarchy” seems to be your position. ( my contribution to sarcasm.)
Okay, so the answers to my questions are an emphatic NO.
That's what I thought. You did basically exactly what I listed.
LOL "power in the private realm" What, washing dishes is real power?! Oh okay. If it were, men would want to do it. They don't. Because it's not.
I picked up on that boy mom energy. Good luck with that.
Lastly, if you think you're going to prevent women from calling out male bullshit by accusing anyone with a legitimate point of VICTIMHOOD MENTALITY, I think we're past that. That's pathetic. This is what trannies do when women point out men shouldn't be playing women's sports.
Nobody is falling for that anymore. Try something new.
The fact that your first thought when I state “power in the private realm” is washing dishes absolutely shows you don’t grasp what I meant at all. Also if “Boy mom energy” means I see things of value in the male child I grew and birthed and laugh and play with everyday, then cool. I’m raising daughters too and highly doubt you would mention “girl mom energy” with the same venomous tone if I spoke of their value.
Emily, thank you!! You are more patient and circumspect in your reaction to Kat. I am an old fart in my seventies who has less patience than you for closed minded people who reflexively hang on to old tired political diatribes for security for its own sake. You are more eloquent in your words and patience, and I agree that is a good thing!
Wow, great and very nuanced piece. I am glad I took the time to listen/read. The false belief in actions without consequences must be exposed. And voluntary restraint might be the least painful option. It is the most rebellious act of all against the dominant form. And that restraint falls disproportionately to men first I believe. Physical strength, creative power, the ability to lead, defend, to speak up and fulfil sexual desire all depend on restraint. Very different from outward directed control, avoidance or denial.
I for one have avoided masculinity for way too long because of the total lack of role models. And I think both the masculine and feminine are unwanted in the narrative of control as dominance, as suppression. Like you say the neutral worker/consumer is most efficient. A consumer that is able to keep themselves from seduction, that knows and is familiar with the impulse and still is able to not give in to that external force is unwanted. This control comes from within and is not exerted. Also very different from the conservative environments of restriction of the past. Thank you for bringing clarity....
Indeed. It's one thing to control oneself, and another thing entirely to try to control other people's sexuality. It's the latter that is and has been the real problem throughout history.
That said, at the risk of sounding politically incorrect, women don't always take no for an answer. At best, expecting men to be the gatekeepers of sex is like letting the fox guard the henhouse (do we even need a gatekeeper at all?), and at worst, creates a double bind for men. So instead of assuming that men have the greater duty of care in every case, we should rather put that onus on the initiator of the act in question regardless of gender. Of course, men may be more reluctant to make the first move as a result, but them's the breaks for at least somewhat more ethical (if less frequent) sex.
The problem with this argument/approach is that it’s circular and never ending. If it’s only pointed at men, why are the men that way? Who raised them!? Both men and women must raise up and take responsibility and accountability for their own decisions and their own actions in the future
My argument is that men are this way because it is innate. The universality of male behavior suggests that.
So it doesn't matter who raises them. Males are like this all over the world and all throughout history. That's my point.
Women don't shoot males in the head as they're walking to school to keep them from learning to read. Women don't fight to keep it legal to marry underage boys. Women aren't fighting to enter male jails and then getting away with rape.
There is just no comparison. I can't go through all of history and all of current news here. You have to be aware of world history and current events to understand this.
If this is your take, that men are innately and irreversibly this way, then what’s your solution? Get rid of all them? That seems to be the logical conclusion of such a hateful view.
I think your argument above resonates with generalizations. I don’t think painting with a wide brush allows for accurate inquiry into real world phenomena! The logic of your argument suggests that all societies, all men in all cultures and all circumstances are carbon copies, that individuality doesn’t exist, that behavior is deterministic, which frankly a fallacious argument logically . Moreover, people who embrace such notions as personal responsibility, individuality, uniqueness, and those who accept existential thinking would soundly reject the premises of your argument!
The biggest problem I can see with America's sexually schizophrenic culture is, aside from the hypocrisy, the neoliberal fallacy of "if you can, you must". Pendulum theory, meet Horseshoe Theory. Two sides, same coin. Two wings, same bird. No one should ever feel they MUST do something sexually that they don't feel right about doing, period. Everyone is diffferent, after all. Be honest with yourself and others. At the same time, no one has the right to control another person's sexuality either. THAT is true sex positivity. Beyond the idea of enthusiastic consent (i.e. if it's not a "HELL YEAH", it's a NO), all things considered, the very least-worst policy I think should be "live and let live".
I think you would like the interview on youtube with Mary Harrington on "Rewilding Sex". A lot of common sense. This is not answering any question, but an observation: i feel like, for me, public high school was a grooming institution. Once i was out of high school, i had a good idea that i wanted something different. Married at 21, 8 babies over the next 18 years...What i wanted wasn't to be desired. That is no prize. It was to be respected and cherished.
I will absolutely look up that interview, I love Mary! I think the same about public high school-I came out of it with not such a clear vision, a binge drinking problem and a drug dealer porn addicted boyfriend, so I clearly wholeheartedly agree. I think the desire to be desired is just the root of the same-that desire to be cherished and respected, as it all starts with desire-which is what I attempted to get at here but may have failed! What a beautiful life it sounds like you have made for yourself! I would love to have that many children, we shall see if it is in the cards ♥️
Powerful! I am from a family of 8 children back in the 50’s and 60’s. Dad was a pastor, and Mom was sensitive to the occasional comments from other women about the size of our family. Mom was always calm, pleasant, and very slow to anger, but VERY sensitive to this criticism. I graphically recall her beet red face on day after returning from a woman’s group of the church ( of an otherwise very pleasant congregation) when she came home VERY upset and angry after evidently hearing a flip comment from a couple of women about the number of children in her family. She responded by “laying them low” and walking out.
OOF sis, this was a tough read! Thank you for writing it but I had to fight tears a few times. This brokenness in our culture is so real😭
In the 60s, the Catholic Church released a text called Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life), saying that we must stand firm against the embracing of birth control, that it will have many negative effects if allowed to widely take hold. Notably, there was an emphasis on the valuing of women:
“A man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman… and reduce her to a mere instrument of his own desires."
Many Catholics brushed it aside (and embraced contraception) as a sign that the Church was out of touch. Now one could argue of course that men never revered women, to which I’d say sure, but has the widespread use of contraception has made this better or worse for us? I know this is a hard topic but I do feel the Church had/has real, deep wisdom to share here, namely that we cannot act as if sex is not sacred, that is it not both a spiritual act of love but also, flowing from that love, a creative one as well.
Re: the Mary Wollstonecraft quote — one of the things I love the MOST about practicing fertility awareness in our marriage is that my husband must practice chastity! The burden doesn’t fall on me: he is also responsible for the fact that sex is procreative. He is involved and aware of where I’m at in my cycle and it’s something we track together. An unexpected beautiful benefit of this type of “birth control” has been the deep connection and unity forged between us around the honoring of what sex really is. I’m reading The Rights of Women (all about MW) and it’s shocking how spot-on the ideas were in early feminism around this topic and others!
More thoughts but that’s all I have time to share now — looking forward to the coming posts as I love Louise’s work but actually haven’t read her book!
That’s quite a line from that text! I have heard of it but didn’t know much about it. One would hope that there is some truth to it and that men (at least some men) hold some reverence for us. But yes I do think that regardless to whatever truth or non-truth that statement holds, that the question you ask about the widespread use of contraception is the one to ask. I think by and large when we meddle in matters of life it just always has physical and social and emotional and spiritual consequences.
And also there is the fact that women have always meddled in these matters-hormonal contraceptives and IUDS and plan B pills and legalized abortion or not. The consequences remain either way. I do think the the societal attitude toward sex that took such a shift due to hormonal BC paired with the actual physiological impact it has on us is a net negative.
I think your comments about Wollstonecraft and your relationship with fertility awareness and your husband is really beautiful! I think when we are forced to confront and reckon with the weight of what sex is and also to abstain when necessary it really holds a potentiality for a deepening of the male and female relationship and your words here are a testament to that!
Keep in mind that the Vatican also opposed, and still opposes, even condoms. Because reasons. Or something. They also oppose masturbation as well as any sex act other that PIV coitus as well. Also because reasons. There is a reason their preferred family planning method is sometimes called "Vatican Roulette", lol.
Great thoughts here, Amber.
And I'm glad you're reading Bachiochi's book 'The Rights of Women'! Such a fascinating one that pairs extremely helpfully with Louise Perry and Mary Harrington's work.
Powerful observations, recollections, and thoughts, and I bow to your professional choice as an English teacher!
Five decades ago when I was majoring in philosophy, I became aware from my friends in your discipline of the load of the number and depth of papers they had to write, and I certainly had great respect for those students and your rigorous discipline!
Where Vatican Roulette really sets both genders up to fail (by design) is where they also prohibit either the man OR the woman from obtaining release by any other means (such as taking matters into their own hands, lol) at a time when women's sexual desire is the greatest of all, and may not necessarily take "NO" for an answer, lol. A fertility awareness method that DOES allow for such alternative activities and releases, while still not perfect, is head and shoulders above Vatican Roulette.
I mean, most women (like 80%) actually either prefer non-penetrative sex or have no strong preference either way. There's a reason why a women's primary pleasure organ is on the outside, lol. It's almost like the Goddess actually WANTS it that way.
Thing is though, men have been doing exactly that since before Jehovah had witnesses. They were just much more hypocritical about it before. Especially with all the scandals that have come out in the wash since then.
I learned the hard way. With my first marriage (only 4 years and no children) blasting this truth straight through me. He wanted to be polyamorous… after having a catholic wedding, me being the catholic marrying a non catholic… thinking I could convert him. It was painful 4 years, me always twisting my body into what he wanted me to be… nearly getting breast implants! But then I had this clarity and left him. I moved to Ireland, married my now husband (we have 4 kids and raising them in our joined Catholic faith) I received an annulment and have been humbled through it all. I am so aware of how difficult it is to be a girl and young woman in this perverse society… and am very focused on modesty and courage with my girls.
Thanks for this writing… hard truth about the reality behind the exotic sexual lifestyles, that shapes so much of media
Thank you for sharing this vulnerability Katie. I truly think the fact that polyamory is trending in the way it is is such a curious thing. People argue that it is human nature but then why is jealously and the need for stability and a sense of secureness also human nature? These things simply cannot exist in the same container, and anyone who tries to convince us otherwise is a manipulative delusional. The want for sexual novelty does not trump the NEED for relational integrity and security, especially when children are involved.
I am happy for you that you found your way out and came to your current life- four babies in Ireland sounds lovely. Thank you for reading ♥️
With all due respect, it is probably best to think of (non-)monogamy as a spectrum rather than a binary, and to think of monogamy as a conscious choice, not a default state. Neither monogamy nor non-monogamy are for everyone, as everyone is different.
(As sex therapist Dr. Marty Klein would say to those who claim these things cannot exist in the same container as it were, tell that to the millions of couples who happily swing every month.)
We can argue till we are blue in the face whether monogamy or non-monogamy is truly natural, as it were. (See "Sex at Dawn" (2010) by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha, and the controversy surrounding it for example.) Ditto for jealousy as well, and all the complexity that entails. But at base, there are three kinds of monogamy: strict, lifelong, and universal. Pick two out of three, because that is all that Mother Nature and the iron laws of supply and demand will allow.
As for jealousy, one could argue that (strict) monogamy "flattens the curve" of jealousy, to put it in the lingua franca of the 2020s. Granted. But the area under the curve likely remains the same at least in the long run, as that green-eyed monster will still be there. Note that Dr. James W. Prescott observed that societies that do NOT enforce monogamy are actually less violent overall than those that do.
And finally, as with anything else, journeys are usually much more dangerous than destinations regardless.
Marty Klein thinks porn is healthy for teens.
Yes, as you point out, cognitive dissonance!
Please don't look into the history of the Magdalene laundries!
Oh boy. A lot of denial over here.
Again, Kat, this woman’s relationship with Catholicism does not make her personally responsible for certain unfortunate facts of the past.
I didn't say it does. I just wonder if people are aware of the past because it's important.
The devil will always attack the church, and it has since the beginning… the belief in Jesus, his living presence in the Eucharist etc that Catholics (and myself) believe in- does not mean everything that has ever occurred under that institution is approved of. Very evil things exist in the institution and every institution. However once you fully understand “the fall” you truly discover the need for our Redeemer and the truth. The last thing the devil wants is for souls to be Catholic… and have a pathway to heaven… so therefore darkness seeps into it on earth, it is spiritual warfare. Do not throw the baby out with the bath water as I like to say. Jesus has never left us
Indeed, trying to convert someone is usually an exercise in futility.
A couple thoughts:
I wholeheartedly agree that the way we currently are dealing with sex is disastrous, especially for women, for girls. However, I wholeheartedly do not want to return to the shameful past approach to sex, in which women were *very* disproportionally held responsible for being chaste, and thus were held to such unrealistic and unhealthy standards, ie women as not sexual at all.
I long for a healthy approach to sexuality, where sex is re-enchanted, where sex is a big deal, where youth are taught its importance and its magnitude. I do think that the approach to sex and sexuality should be different for young men and women, because we are different after all. But I don’t want young women to bear the brunt of responsibility and stigma. We can and should teach them how sex disproportionally affects women, in a way that is wholesome and reverent of their power for bringing life into the world.
Clara I wholeheartedly agree with you on almost all of this. I think the only point I’m coming up against is women not bearing the brunt of the responsibility that accompanies sexuality. Not because I want that for women and girls, more that that is just an objective fact to a point. Women bear the brunt because we make the life.
This is where my affinity for cycle charting and fertility awareness and these things being taught alongside basic menstrual knowledge around the age of menarche comes into play. It’s a tool, yes, but also a lesson in the power of our female physicality, and one that can then lend itself to that re-enchanting of sex. Not to say young men shouldn’t be held to certain standards or shouldn’t be given similar knowledge for themselves and also about female physiology, just that there are certain biological realities females must deal with.
I agree with this— I think I hesitated to say that because I wish the responsibility wasn’t so lopsided, but alas, it’s the reality
Indeed, we should not blame the victim as it were, nor put an undue burden on women. But the fact remains that expecting men to be the gatekeepers of sex is like letting the fox guard the henhouse, and such a "reverse double standard" where the duty of care is placed entirely on men is also just as unrealistic and problematic.
Enthusiastic consent (not mere grudging "consent"), while not perfect, nonetheless covers a lot more ground that those who knock the idea seem to realize. If it's not a HELL YEAH, it's a NO. Yes, there are other dimensions to sexual ethics as well: mutuality, honesty. respect, dignity, empathy and so on. The categorical imperative per Immanuel Kant (if he wasn't so antisexual!) comes to mind, as does the Golden, Silver, and Platinum Rules. And there are a lot of gray areas in these other dimensions.
I sgree!
You think males aren't the main cause of this? Why aren't you talking to other males rather than leaving comments here?
Wow Kat! So your position apparently is since I am a male I therefore have no right and no place to enter into a dialogue about this very interesting subject? I had a wonderful mother, and I have a wonderful wife of over 46 years of marriage, four younger sisters, several aunts, two grandmothers, and I raised a son and three daughters and am involved with four grandchildren, two of which are female, I attended schools and universities for decades surrounded be male and female teachers and professors who mentored me, I worked with many women, and managed a long list of both men and women in the several business careers I managed.
So the point of your position I have nothing to offer or reflect about in this important discussion is frankly absurd and fallacious in your assumptions!
Clara, the disproportionate responsibility between males and females is a conversation I personally find very frustrating, because I WANT it to be equivalently balanced. But the reality is that it just isn't. A man will NEVER stand in the place of physically conceiving and containing another human, so the weight of responsibility associated with sex will always feel one body removed from him even if he is choosing responsibility. He has the ability to choose between not assuming and assuming responsibility for life, while a woman can only truly sidestep responsibility for life by altering her body in some way.
Totally agree
The past for women was terrible, the current situation for women is terrible, and young women have to be TAUGHT about how sex is fun but also wholesome but also serious but also seriously hurts them but also...?
Do men have to be taught anything? They are the origin of the problem here. Who controls the systems of power that make this true?
Who paid for the prostitutes in the first place and caused the pregnancies that led to the bones underneath them?
Who controls the religions, political systems, educational systems that kept women out and put them in these situations?
Who is to blame here?
Actually yes, sex is all of those things. Because it is an act attached to human beings and all of the complexities that come along with our individual desires and limits and personalities and experiences. And yes, girls should be taught that. So should boys.
“Pretending sex is meaningless feels like just another The-Emperor-Has-No-Clothes-ism we seem to love to engage in for show.” YES.
It’s like societal blinders are on at all times or something!
One of the most striking experiences of my youth was watching my girlfriends grapple with their feelings for men they insisted were “just f*** buddies.” It’s like women our age always felt like we weren’t allowed to be committed. My girlfriends thought I was prude because I didn’t want to be totally casually not-dating (“hanging out with”) two men at once, and I wasn’t even sleeping with either at the time. That was always so striking to me. There was a distinct attitude in the culture I grew up that sex was meant to be fun and free and casual, and you settled down when you were “ready” and had “lived a little.” What a trail of heartbreak and soundings those lies have left in their wake.
I’m not sure your age but I have I feeling we likely grew up around the same time with the same messaging because I had similar experiences-both witnessed and personal. I always think about Sex and the City when this topic comes up because it’s such a prime example of how this attitude was just completely pushed on us.
*woundings
Emily, thank you for this epic read. Your writing is deeply inspiring and always takes me somewhere I've been wanting to go. This is a piece to return to again and again.
Thank you Stephanie! It’s always exciting to get comments on things I published a while ago as well, by the way, glad they still have a little life left in them.
Learned the hard way, and later than most ( blame the tick of my biological clock…)and now having to struggle with the feeling of stupidity and wasted years, as my fertility and his testosterone drop drastically…
Learned many lessons but wouldn’t ever recommend learning that way, the scars hurt too much.
I have been waiting eagerly for this post from you! And then it came out and I told myself I had to finish a Substack letter of my own before I got to come indulge here...look how long that's taken and now I'm late to the discussion.
It was interesting to me to read Louise Perry's book in conjunction with Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, especially with what looks like two separate ideologies each leading to the same outcome: the commodification of human sexuality.
As a child, the communities in which I grew up frequently highlighted examples of immorality and censured female sexuality rather aggressively. Biological information about male and female sexuality and its accompanying dynamics was, unsurprisingly, in short supply. I ended up swinging to the other extreme for a bit, trying to connect with my inner casual cool girl, and found that the "cool girl" I was trying to be actually wasn't cool at all, in any sense of the word. While I wouldn't say I feel any particular shame about my forays across the other end of the spectrum, I'm also acutely aware of the lifelong consequences of how I held my own sexuality both in repressing and indulging. Both were informative phases, but they left powerful imprints.
In my opinion, the damage hasn't changed, we just have technology to remove us from physically witnessing the consequences. The infant bodies accumulated under brothels are a painful reality of sex commodified without relationship; women and our children pay the highest price for this, at least physically. But now we have birth control and IUDs to mask the physical consequences to our fertility (eliminating the unpleasant vision of the bodies of unwanted babies) and cultural inputs that allow us to mask the emotional consequences (orientation towards consumerism as emotional fulfillment, a continual turntable of digital voices creating echo chambers, and the ever widening cabinet of pharmaceutical options for blunting mental anguish). "Things are not good just because some of us say they are." Back again to Margaret Atwood: "Better never means better for everyone... It always means worse for some."
I love that you point out the interrelatedness of disenchantment in birth and disenchantment in sex. One of the most unexpected correlations I've come up against in birth work is with mothers (and fathers) who are deeply disconnected from the pleasure and physiology of their sexuality; in my experience this almost always pairs with a neglect of fundamental personal needs, more resistance and less adaptability to the challenges of parenting, and more difficulty in accepting birth as a transformative experience. All anecdotal experience, of course, but to me the connection is very real, and I see a fairly consistent pattern between particular birth and postpartum complications and this disconnect from/disenchantment of healthy sexuality on an individual level. Not to mention that disenchantment with parenting also seems to be a tangible outworking of this sexual disenchantment.
I'm curious about the reality that might unfold if even a small percentage of women stopped negotiating their own sexuality behind a facade of low investment. Granted, returning to eras of vilifying feminine sexuality isn't progress at all, but neither is this contemporary version where there is a steady pressure to become desirable by becoming sexually available while also remaining emotionally detached. Progress is only progress if it proceeds with deepening human connection.
Disturbing to learn about the babies bones found indicating a brothel by archeologists. Yeah, many men do not care about the chastity of women. I believe there are some out there who do. I hope. Too much value is placed on sex. There is a time and place. Why aren't men and women more concerned regarding developing talents and abilities versus focusing on the sex. Men are the worst I have to admit when it comes to sex. A person has to set their boundaries and live them. The value system is upside down for sure. Even if a person feels like they want sex they do not have to go for it. Just keep it under control by not engaging. Do not let men use you.
I think the sexual impulse is simple human nature and there is nothing wrong with prioritizing and pursuing it, alongside many other aspects of life. These things can co-exist easily and well. There is a self-restraint problem in our culture however, and currently this applies to both men and women, and is to the detriment of both-which is why I choose to talk about this and am showcasing Perry’s work on the topic, it is a much needed conversation.
Yes Emily, I agree the human sexual impulse is human nature; it is a life giving river that can also overrun the banks and cause great destruction when people forget about consequences of conservation, which has taken place in my lifetime! Thank you for bringing bringing clarity and attention back to this most important and vital issue!
I see. Well, I am old fashioned in that I think people should wait till married. Not that it's realistic. I am and have been chaste actually, by my own choice. I have chosen not to be promiscuous. It's a personal choice. Someone will get hurt and does get hurt if things of this nature are not kept within bounds. The men usually play the devil's advocate and ruin the woman's life. I'd rather that women protect themselves from such unnecessary heartbreak.
I suppose I think there is a lot of nuance and balance that needs to be considered and also consider sex to be something we are literally made to engage in, and also something that abstaining from at times is necessary.
This is a rare comment that actually addresses the origin of the problem--male behavior.
It really hit me that I think we might have lived a similar life. I took had those bangs. I too found things online as the very first generation and that my parents had no idea of. I was groomed online so early that I learned no boundaries to protect myself. I never considered that my life may have been better 80 years earlier because of the endless repetition of our freedoms and choices. And our mothers were happy for us because they did not know our suffering and they should we were free from sexual shame which they had suffered from. I wish somebody had protected me.
Typo: 'I too had those bangs' I meant to say
Fun Fact: The original meaning of chastity was actually "purity of heart", not sexlessness. Even if the word is almost never used in that context now.
Does anybody really want to address the main cause and the origin of all of these problems--male behavior?
I see a lot of hand-wringing and whining about women, what we do, how we need to protect/avoid/change/not wear short skirts--why? What is the origin of all of these problems?
Who caused all of the pregnancies that led to babies' bones under brothels? Who paid to sexually use those prostitutes, then probably went home and maybe beat their more morally deserving wives (legally of course)? Who dominated the systems of power and purposefully kept women out of economics/education/social power? Who is the problem here?
Does anybody want to talk about that without "But it's NOT ALL men!" or "You're just a hater!" or "Stop waging a gEnDeR WaR!" or "My husband never beat the shit out of me!"
Are many people really willing to be honest about males as the origin of all of this?
Did you actually read the entire piece? Maybe take a look at the the Mary Wollstonecraft quote in the beginning. I am speaking to these exact things, maybe in a less vitriolic manner which considers how men are also negatively impacted by current societal attitudes, but male behavior is absolutely up for discussion here. I have lots of interest in evolutionary psychology and looking into that realm demands an objective understanding of human nature, which is much of what you bring up here.
I also believe men have the capability to practice self restraint and use that to the benefit of all people, I don’t see them as inherently bad. Perhaps inherently prone to violence, yes, but that is purposeful at it’s root. It’s a matter of honing our natural proclivities and instilling virtues into ourselves-both men and women.
You won’t see me denying the horrors of male violence and control over women through history. I have suffered at the hands of men many times over. I also am raising a son with a man I love and was raised myself by a good man. We have to be able to hold it all.
I also understand that yes, men have held power over women historically but I also think often the power of women in history is undersold and it is to the detriment of us today. The constant mention of how hard we had it in the public sphere while simultaneously completely ignoring the power women held in the private realm is just another way women of today indulge in victimhood mentality.
Perfect response! I think playing the blame game on one sex or the other is insincere and a cop out! This a a societal movement born of all that you have so brilliantly identified and embraced! Thank you!
Yeah, you're right. A male who lives in Iceland (a country where women have gained the most power in society) has the exact same life as a female in Afghanistan (where men have gained the most power).
It's totally comparable how men act and have acted throughout history, and the physical, legal, and economic power that males have wielded over females purposefully is JUST LIKE what females have done.
So INSINCERE! What a COP OUT!
It's not my job to give you an education in legal, world, and economic history. Men are delusional and incapable of self-awareness and shame.
Interesting, Icelanders probably have one of the very few true "hookup cultures" in the entire world. Other Nordic countries do to some extent, of course, but the Anglosphere and especially here in the USA? No, what we have here is a schizoid culture of negativity towards sex and relationships more generally.
Wow, thanks for your sarcasm; at least it indicates you DO have a semblance of a sense of humor!
Unfortunately, you dodged the issue entirely by still playing the blame game against one gender entirely, which of course you must be completely correct in sticking to it since, “it’s the patriarchy” seems to be your position. ( my contribution to sarcasm.)
Okay, so the answers to my questions are an emphatic NO.
That's what I thought. You did basically exactly what I listed.
LOL "power in the private realm" What, washing dishes is real power?! Oh okay. If it were, men would want to do it. They don't. Because it's not.
I picked up on that boy mom energy. Good luck with that.
Lastly, if you think you're going to prevent women from calling out male bullshit by accusing anyone with a legitimate point of VICTIMHOOD MENTALITY, I think we're past that. That's pathetic. This is what trannies do when women point out men shouldn't be playing women's sports.
Nobody is falling for that anymore. Try something new.
The fact that your first thought when I state “power in the private realm” is washing dishes absolutely shows you don’t grasp what I meant at all. Also if “Boy mom energy” means I see things of value in the male child I grew and birthed and laugh and play with everyday, then cool. I’m raising daughters too and highly doubt you would mention “girl mom energy” with the same venomous tone if I spoke of their value.
Emily, thank you!! You are more patient and circumspect in your reaction to Kat. I am an old fart in my seventies who has less patience than you for closed minded people who reflexively hang on to old tired political diatribes for security for its own sake. You are more eloquent in your words and patience, and I agree that is a good thing!
Okay, good luck!
Wow, great and very nuanced piece. I am glad I took the time to listen/read. The false belief in actions without consequences must be exposed. And voluntary restraint might be the least painful option. It is the most rebellious act of all against the dominant form. And that restraint falls disproportionately to men first I believe. Physical strength, creative power, the ability to lead, defend, to speak up and fulfil sexual desire all depend on restraint. Very different from outward directed control, avoidance or denial.
I for one have avoided masculinity for way too long because of the total lack of role models. And I think both the masculine and feminine are unwanted in the narrative of control as dominance, as suppression. Like you say the neutral worker/consumer is most efficient. A consumer that is able to keep themselves from seduction, that knows and is familiar with the impulse and still is able to not give in to that external force is unwanted. This control comes from within and is not exerted. Also very different from the conservative environments of restriction of the past. Thank you for bringing clarity....
Indeed. It's one thing to control oneself, and another thing entirely to try to control other people's sexuality. It's the latter that is and has been the real problem throughout history.
That said, at the risk of sounding politically incorrect, women don't always take no for an answer. At best, expecting men to be the gatekeepers of sex is like letting the fox guard the henhouse (do we even need a gatekeeper at all?), and at worst, creates a double bind for men. So instead of assuming that men have the greater duty of care in every case, we should rather put that onus on the initiator of the act in question regardless of gender. Of course, men may be more reluctant to make the first move as a result, but them's the breaks for at least somewhat more ethical (if less frequent) sex.
Try moving beyond your cynicism and at least plat with the notion your reflexive activism may not be open to query and simple logic!!!
(My reply to Kat)
The problem with this argument/approach is that it’s circular and never ending. If it’s only pointed at men, why are the men that way? Who raised them!? Both men and women must raise up and take responsibility and accountability for their own decisions and their own actions in the future
My argument is that men are this way because it is innate. The universality of male behavior suggests that.
So it doesn't matter who raises them. Males are like this all over the world and all throughout history. That's my point.
Women don't shoot males in the head as they're walking to school to keep them from learning to read. Women don't fight to keep it legal to marry underage boys. Women aren't fighting to enter male jails and then getting away with rape.
There is just no comparison. I can't go through all of history and all of current news here. You have to be aware of world history and current events to understand this.
If this is your take, that men are innately and irreversibly this way, then what’s your solution? Get rid of all them? That seems to be the logical conclusion of such a hateful view.
Kat,
I think your argument above resonates with generalizations. I don’t think painting with a wide brush allows for accurate inquiry into real world phenomena! The logic of your argument suggests that all societies, all men in all cultures and all circumstances are carbon copies, that individuality doesn’t exist, that behavior is deterministic, which frankly a fallacious argument logically . Moreover, people who embrace such notions as personal responsibility, individuality, uniqueness, and those who accept existential thinking would soundly reject the premises of your argument!
But we let them pornification our sons. Why???
The biggest problem I can see with America's sexually schizophrenic culture is, aside from the hypocrisy, the neoliberal fallacy of "if you can, you must". Pendulum theory, meet Horseshoe Theory. Two sides, same coin. Two wings, same bird. No one should ever feel they MUST do something sexually that they don't feel right about doing, period. Everyone is diffferent, after all. Be honest with yourself and others. At the same time, no one has the right to control another person's sexuality either. THAT is true sex positivity. Beyond the idea of enthusiastic consent (i.e. if it's not a "HELL YEAH", it's a NO), all things considered, the very least-worst policy I think should be "live and let live".
(Mic drop)
I am just going to leave this right here:
https://thechaliceandtheflame.blogspot.com/2022/07/viva-lacounterrevolution-why.html
https://stanleyabner1951gmailcom.substack.com/p/listen-to-your-mother-4d7