 |
|
 |
|
|
April 3, 2003
Past Tense, Part Two
Turns out, "Runaround Sue's" boyfriend isn't the only one who can't deal with her sexual history.
It seems last week's column about one boyfriend's issues with his girlfriend's sexual past ruffled a few feathers out there. These readers flapped back. So here's the bird right back atcha.
I like your columns. But on the flip side of that, neither of you being men, I believe that opining as to what men think, feel, or believe is outside your realm of experience, true knowledge, or ultimate understanding feel free to call on me for an opinion in that regard if you'd consider a guest opiner (ha!).
A job application thinly veiled as criticism is not the best way to further your career. How do we disagree with thee? Let us count the ways: hundreds of emails every week from guys anonymously confessing their sincerest sexual desires and concerns; ten years experience between the two of us as sex magazine editors; plus countless boyfriends and boy friends over the years who we actually c-o-m-m-u-n-i-c-a-t-e with, seek advice from, and occasionally screw. Just because we've never eaten poop, doesn't mean we can't opine as to how bad it would taste.
To some extent I think you have underplayed the hurt caused by a girlfriend who would tell a sexual story about an ex in front of a current boyfriend at a social gathering. That's harsh! How often would you want your boyfriend cracking jokes about other women he had fucked while you sat in the room with him? There would be an element of humiliation involved for most normal humans. There is being liberal and open about the past...and there is being insensitive and cruel. Sue crosses that line.
My experience was that a middle ground needed to be reached. Sex comments and stories were off limits unless they helped explain some trauma or emotional barrier. Thoughts, feelings, and nonsexual stories about past relationships and how they might be impacting the current one were obviously allowed. There are much more important and relevant things to spend time on in a relationship than hearing how an ex liked to stick a finger in your bum or some such nonsense.
I feel Sue should keep her thoughts to herself, her close friends, or maybe a sister. A constant need to rehash the past shows that somehow it isn't over. She has a right to her past and doesn't have to disown it, but I don't recall the relationship law that says guys have to hear about other men and how hilarious sex was with them. The only thing more threatening than that is actually having someone cheat on you. Nature created a bit of jealousy in all of us for a reason and going against nature has never done anyone much good.
First of all, sticking a finger up your bum is not nonsense it can be an incredibly pleasurable and satisfying sexual experience shared between two people. Even if it is kinda gross. So don't knock it.
The second thing you've got to understand is that writing an advice column is a tricky business (not tough, mind you, just tricky). We get very little to go on. After all, these short questions are only one side of very complicated relationships. But we've got to make a leap of faith, and assume that the inquirers are being honest and fair. Chances are they're just big fat liars looking for justification of their own selfish desires, but for the sake of the lessons that can be learned from their stories, we err on the side of naivete and give them the benefit of the doubt. You, sir, have not done that for Sue. Did Sue say she has a constant need to rehash the graphic details of her every previous encounter whenever she's out in public, whether or not the subject of sex has come up? We didn't glean that from her letter, but then again, we don't have the Little Orphan Annie decoder pin. What we read was that when the subject of sex occasionally comes up, whether when the two of them are alone or with a group of friends, her hypersensitive and slightly controlling boyfriend freaks out if she acknowledges that she had sex before he came onto the scene. What we read in your letter is you projecting the sins of a previous bad-mannered (and perhaps even unfaithful) girlfriend of yours onto Sue.
And finally, "going against nature" seems to be working out great for all the gays, lesbians, bis, trannies, and swingers we know. So don't knock it.
For some guys, like me, we would prefer that our serious love relationship partner not remind us of something she did that was degrading. What would constitute "degrading"? Everyone has an internally valid definition, since it is the beholder's emotions we are considering. As an example, friends of mine once attended a party at which a young woman willingly fellated anyone who asked (she'd escort them into the men's bathroom to do it). How many guys took her up on the offer? Several, at least. Now if my wife, whom I know had many boyfriends and a first husband and a child before we met, were to start off a dinner party conversation by saying '"Did I ever tell you about the time I sucked off seven guys in one night in a men's room?" I would be somewhat uneasy. I would be disturbed by the image. I would also be uncomfortable with learning about the prior experience in the company of others, because I would be concerned about their opinion of my wife's behavior. I love her, and our intimacy enables me to understand her in a way some other people might not. I would prefer some of the moments we share to remain ours only, so I hope she is discreet, as I am (a gentleman always is, you know). By extension, an intimate moment she shared with another may also be something that I would prefer she not share with the general public. I would hope that she would respect our relationship enough to consider carefully before discussing past intimacy in public, especially if it is an experience we haven't discussed in private.
Woah, woah, woah. When did Runaround Sue become Suck-'em-off Sue? Remember, people, if you're going to sit on our jury, you can only work with the facts at hand, as presented at trial. You can't go getting your knickers in a twist over a twisting of the facts.
But more importantly, degradation is not in the eye of the beholder. Ultimately, it's up to the protagonist of the situation. If they're of sound mind, if they're sober (enough), if they're happy with their lot in life for the most part, if they're participating in this kind of sex because they want to and not because they feel backed into a corner, and if they don't feel ashamed by it, then it's insulting and condescending (not to mention grammatically impossible) to suggest that they're degraded by it. Sure, it might degrade your opinion of someone, but that's an issue you have to work through on your own clock. In the meantime, keep your "internally valid definitions" to yourself.
There's a tongue-in-cheek Woody Allen quote from Crimes and Misdemeanors that goes, "Tragedy plus time equals comedy." We'd add "Or at least a great cocktail party story." Sure, we're sticklers for etiquette some stories work over drinks but not food, others work best after midnight, and still others are best kept for immediate family members only. It's basic good manners to be sensitive to your partner's ego and your audience's appetite. But unfortunately, sexism frequently goes undercover as "etiquette," and has done since the invention of table manners. (In fact, a recent study found that men who say they believe in chivalry are more likely to exhibit sexist attitudes towards women.) The coda of "ladylike behavior" is often just an excuse for controlling women and squashing their innate sexuality. Sixty-eight years of sexual liberation (on average) is not a lot of time to undo that centuries-old tradition, but dudes, you've got to try.
For the record, though, we would like to say that fellating multiple volunteers inside the men's bathroom at a party is not particularly ladylike. A real lady would do it in the coat room to avoid holding up the potty line.
It seems to me that the scenario described most often comes up because of jealousy. You touched on it, but how can that be dealt with? Wouldn't it be best to advise honesty with a heaping dose of reassurance? "I did do such and such with so and so, but it doesn't compare to you" or "With you it would be so much better/more fulfilling/more exciting because I have feelings for you, not for so-and-so/because I trust you," etc.
You said it brother. Egos are delicate, and not just men's (exhibit A: this very installment of our column). And if anyone's a sucker for a compliment, it's us. We definitely could have extolled the power of praise a little more. As romantics, we tend to assume that a gushing overflow of acclamation is automatic in a loving relationship. Even if it's not automatic, we think y'all would have learned from Oprah years ago that it's just plain good manners.
You missed one important factor in Sue's sexual history and story-telling. If a guy hears too much about a girl's past, and that past includes lots of carefree sex, it may (or will) give the guy the idea that the woman is easy. In other words, that she is "easily won over." And translated yet again: that she could just as easily walk away from her current relationship for some wonderful sex "over there"! No guy wants to feel that his girlfriend could so easily walk out! That's why we like chicks to say "No" on the first date!
You guys have got to get over this antiquated notion that a woman who engages in sex early on in a relationship is not "girlfriend material." It's simply poppycock. And it's probably ruined your chances over the years at a few great relationships with incredible, sexy women who are perfectly capable of being committed and monogamous. Your kind of thinking gives women no credit: We are not "won over" by sex and sex alone. No one with half a brain and a heart is. If we're talking serious relationships here, then we're talking about a whole bunch of factors (personality, sense of humor, political views, sexual compatibility, opinion on My Big Fat Greek Wedding, etc.) that convince people to commit.
This line of thinking doesn't give you any credit, either: Do you have so little to offer a serious relationship that all it would take is the promise of a big dick to make your partner stray?
You've got to recondition this old school cognitive process by applying some logic. Think of it like this: Women who have sex on the first date are their own sexual agents; they know what they want, they don't play petty games, and they're independent and free-thinking. Sounds like a dream girl to us, and to many of the smart men we know. But if you're in the market for the kind of lady who's only going to use sex as a bartering tool to score a big fat fancy engagement ring and a weekly allowance to go shopping at Barneys, then you just go right on using your first date litmus test. And remember to walk with your hands in your pockets so they don't scrape the ground.
I was right there with you on the "don't equate sex with pathology." Then you go and blow it with a fucking disclaimer like "As long as you've been tested for all the STDs (which of course you have been, right?), then the number of partners in your past shouldn't be an issue." Tested, sure. Now what about results? Your comment seems to imply that since you're clean, and you've been safe with all these random acts, you're fine. What about those who end up catching something funky and viral from their first encounter? Whores? In your modified lexicon, yup. How about those of us who are working on lifestyle (how I hate that term) reform? Fer instance, I was lucky in the years I was a teenage prostitute that I didn't catch anything or get pregnant. But I did get herpes from my (now ex) husband years later. Where does the judgement fall now? I'm neither a madonna nor a whore, and I'm a hell of a faceted good time. I like your column often enough, but sometimes I wish your moral pronouncements would incorporate more gray areas.
You got us. We're so committed to stressing safer sex that sometimes we just mention it on auto-pilot, without making sure we're making ourselves clear. So that closing line did sound like we were suggesting that if Sue happened to have an STD then she deserved all of her boyfriend's (and society's) derision. Of course, that's not what we meant. If you read most of our columns (like the one two weeks ago on dealing with herpes), then you know we're big advocates of destigmatizing STDs, acknowledging the fact that they are a part of our sexual reality, and getting good information on the matter out there. In fact, we've got a gigundo chapter on STDs in our forthcoming book, something practically unheard of in guides to better sex. Our intention with the test mention last week was to emphasize the importance of practicing safer sex every time, whether you have one partner or ninety-nine. It's all about how you have sex (responsibly, safely, honestly whether you have an STD or not), rather than how often.
As far as the moral pronouncements go, obviously there are innumerable shades of gray in everyone's reality. But in a thousand-word column, we can't belabor every possible point while we play with our navel lint (that's what your therapists are there for). We take a stand, we write about the way we think things should be in a perfect world, and we have our own unique moral codes we cram down your throat. Without our opinions, this column would be spineless just one big jellyfish of platitudes, eighties references, and self-referential jokes (kind of like your high school yearbook).
From Runaround Sue: Thank you so much for answering my question last week in your column. Here's an update: My boyfriend and I had a big discussion, and all is good. I went over everyone I had slept with. Turns out he thought that my fucking never had any love in it, so I told him the good, the bad, and the ugly of all my past relationships. He was relieved, I cried, he said "Now, there, that is real." I can occasionally tell stories about sex, and he can occasionally tell me great stories about putting E in his ass. All is good. I love him still, and he loves me back.
We love a happy ending.
Told you so,
Em & Lo
|
| About Em & Lo |
 |
Em and Lo (Emma Taylor and Lorelei Sharkey) are contributing editors at hooksexup.com, where they created the weekly sex and relationships column, "The Em & Lo Down: Advice from Near-Experts." Launched almost three years ago, it's now syndicated on most of Spring Street Networks' personals partner sites. In addition, they write weekly horoscopes for Hooksexup and Spring Street Networks, and a weekly column debunking sex myths for the UK newspaper the Guardian. Their first book, The Big Bang: Hooksexup's Guide to the New Sexual Universe is forthcoming from Plume in July 2003. They both live in New York City where they spend far too much time together. |
|
Em & Lo are not doctors, psychiatrists, or even particularly wise in matters of the heart and other organs. These answers are meant as entertainment. Well, they entertain us. We hope they entertain you.
|
|
|
