Posted on 01/11/2003 4:18:26 PM PST by MadIvan
Internet dating has prompted a return to Seventies-style free love. But this time it’s got no soul, writes Naomi Wolf
Casual sex is back. One more relic of the early 1970s is apparently returning to the scene: hipster trousers and peace movements have been joined by a resurgence of the “zipless f---”, as Erica Jong christened it. If you hadn’t noticed this, don’t feel too bad. It could have to do with where you live. According to New York magazine, arbiter of all things cutting edge in Manhattan, the new fleshpots are teeming in certain urban centres in America.
At first glance this seems a ludicrous claim: this is the country that puts “The New Virginity” on Time magazine’s cover; a country whose president proclaims from the bully pulpit the benefits of “abstinence education” — even though Texas, his home state, saw teen pregnancy rates rise to the second highest in the nation under his abstinence-education-pushing governorship. This is a country that thinks it newsworthy that Britney Spears is or is not a virgin.
But when it comes to sexuality, hypocrisy has long been America’s middle name. Its attitude towards sex is puritanical and prurient at the same time. Despite the virgin-friendly rhetoric of the heartland’s pop culture and its White House, New York magazine is indeed onto something: in the decadent cities and, I would add, in certain trendy college towns, new technologies and attitudes — among teens and twentysomethings, primarily — are indeed creating a subculture in which random sex is once again having its day. The feel, however, is completely different from the innocent abandon of the sexual revolution the first time around.
Technology has opened the door, starting with the internet.
In New York, among reasonable, personable people, internet dating is not only acceptable now, it is often desirable. Close women friends of mine have found casual dates and lovers — interestingly, not husbands — on the net. We have spent evenings of hilarity ridiculing these self-advertisers’ flights of personal idealisation (“people call me rugged”) and faux-romanticism (how many blokes really like taking “long hand-in-hand walks on a beach” that often?). But they sort through what is essentially an erotic catalogue, select the best on offer and go for it. To me, who came of age before this was possible, the method appears to be a potential step-by-step way of arranging dinner with an axe murderer or contracting the pox. But I am married and, thus, a dinosaur. My fears — shaped by having dated in the Aids-aware 1980s — are no longer dominant in the city among younger, single people.
Technology in the form of medical advances, too, has helped clear the way for the new sexual revolution. The past 10 years here in the city have seen prominent men with Aids — and with access to protease inhibitors — live, thrive and look great. The Grim Reaper imagery behind all dating in the 1980s and 1990s has faded. Now young people on the prowl for Eros see the HIV-positive basketball star Magic Johnson looking hale on the sides of buses, scenes of men with HIV partying in hot little tank tops on Fire Island, young commentators with HIV looking fetching on Sunday morning political talk shows and older commentators with HIV moving into their third decade of Aids activism, their strength apparently undiminished. The visible wasting and deaths have moved down the social scale (to the poor black neighbourhoods) and overseas. Death doesn’t come — visibly — to “our” flirtatious parties any more; “our” HIV infections seem to let us live for ever.
Finally, technology has moved forward at last in the realm of contraception, which used to be so messy, ugly and low-tech you wouldn’t want to deal with it unless you were with someone you liked and trusted. Now contraception has been eroticised: “the patch” is a sexy little tattoo-like thingy you place on your hip or backside and voilà — no more fertility. Even the evil old intrauterine device has undergone a makeover — Mirena is the new name, and the marketing highlights the spontaneity it provides.
There are stores all over Greenwich Village, where I live, with names such as Condomania devoted only to the wild and tasty varieties of condoms. The access and the safeguards to casual sex, in short, have been buffed and revamped and the fear has receded.
The internet has created for many women in the city what a gay male friend of mine has called “inventory” — a back-up supply of not necessarily ideal but plausible erotic possibilities. And women are going for it.
If you have read Norman Rush’s brilliant book Mating, you will be familiar with his suggestive theory of “assortative mating” — ie that you seek out and most likely end up with someone roughly as physically attractive as you are. The internet has radically democratised the sexual access that used to be restricted to the wealthy-and-plain or the beautiful. In short, before the internet, if you were an unattractive man or woman without great wealth, you were restricted in terms of sexual access to the people you knew who were willing for whatever reason to sleep with you. Now the net has expanded the pool of people who are not wealthy and only moderately attractive — or even unattractive — that you can choose from.
You don’t need to risk or give rejection by inching too far above or below your “assortative mating” range. You don’t have to bump into someone in your attractiveness range in a bar in order to get laid; like looking up a car you can afford, you can look your sexual peers up online. This expands the sexual options for ordinary lustful mortals of both genders.
Several studies — one financed by the Independent Women’s Forum, a right-wing think tank — establish that “drunken hook-ups” are the regular interaction of choice on certain American college campuses. They are right wing, but they are right.
At a big university recently I talked with the undergraduates about the deadening effect of pornography on sex. It became clear that after a decade of having access to the internet they were intimately familiar with porn, but intimacy — and the hearts of the opposite sex — were more of an elusive mystery than ever.
A heated conversation ensued in which young men and women wanted to talk about soulless sex. One young man described how he and everyone he knows has sex right away with the person that in our day they might have dated — “to get the awkwardness out. I mean, it is going to happen anyway”.
“But,” I asked, dumbfounded, “isn’t the ‘awkwardness’ as you get to know each other a huge part of the fun? I mean, doesn’t that do away with the thrill of, like, progressive unveiling . . . the sexual tension? The mystery.”
He and all the young folk around him, boys and girls, looked at me as if I were speaking a dead language. “Mystery?” he gave me a blank look. “Sex has no mystery.” It was not a bold, provocative statement — merely an assertion of something everyone knew.
“We are so tightly scheduled,” one young woman explained. “Why get to know someone first? It is a waste of time. If you hook- up you can just get your needs met and get on your way.”
For these kids, sex is like going to the gym; an outlet, a body function, “a way you can assure yourself you’re attractive”, as one young miss said, a way to stay in shape.
In the language of the new sexual revolution, the word “release” comes up a lot. A friend my age was describing the twentysomethings in her poetry workshop — luscious young women in tight jeans and plunging necklines — and how many poems they wrote in the class. Their writings were not critical, but direct — about “booty calls”.
“What’s that? What is a ‘booty call’?” shouted a slightly deaf 80-year-old poet who had known WH Auden.
A booty call is, it turns out, what you do when it is late at night, you have been drinking and you have not found your “hook-up” yet. So you call around to your friends to see who will go home with you and get the job done.
There is, it seems, for all the bravado and sexual equality in the chase, less of a thrill now for these young men and women. They need more amping up, it appears, more videos and lap dances or “cake” as they call it — to get the kind of charge we used to get just from rolling around on a sunny meadow in our Grateful Dead T-shirts and our peasant blouses.
How distant from this techno-world our first sexual revolution seems, especially in its early days. Even in the pornography of the era you see the actors, albeit inadvertently, start to “make love”. That’s certainly not what the kids of today have grown up watching.
The first sexual revolution, while it had its sweaty businessmen leering, was also a humanist movement that made room for people to grow into their own souls; the gay liberation marches made a claim for love, not just for an equality of orifices; the women’s movement marched for the pill not so we could coldly, mechanically leap from bed to bed but so that we could become the people we were meant to be without being forced into the mechanics of unwanted baby-making. For a brief shining moment, the self — the freedom to be a self, a soul in a body — was still in there with the sexuality.
Is this sexually egalitarian mechanoworld liberation? Is it for this that people smuggled Tropic of Cancer into America? To replace hypocrisy and prudishness with full-access, full-frontal mechanics and clinical detachment? And when it comes to women — is this what we had a sexual revolution for? Is it a feminist victory to have young women without shame if they also have no depth to their erotic sense of self? It depends on what you thought the goals of the feminist and sexual revolution were supposed to have been. Underneath all this right-on forthrightness, I sense a kind of sadness and numbness.
New York magazine also reported on a rise in the lack of desire among young professionals in the city. I think these are related. How paradoxical. As one Yiddish proverb has it: “Be careful what you ask for — you might get it.” Maybe now that we have won, and are granted, the right to do whatever the hell we want with our bodies, we can see how that alone is not the end of freedom.
Maybe the real revolution is when you set not just the body free in the marketplace, but also the soul in the body.
Advisor? Friend, she was his manhood...
Only in your mind, Naomi. And only for a moment.
Is this sexually egalitarian mechanoworld liberation? Is it for this that people smuggled Tropic of Cancer into America? To replace hypocrisy and prudishness with full-access, full-frontal mechanics and clinical detachment?
Liberation? Yes, from personal responsibility.
And when it comes to women — is this what we had a sexual revolution for? Is it a feminist victory to have young women without shame if they also have no depth to their erotic sense of self? It depends on what you thought the goals of the feminist and sexual revolution were supposed to have been.
What did you think it was for, Naomi? What did you think the goals were? Where did you think sex without attachment or responsibility would lead? It wasn't just 'the pill' that gave you this liberation but abortion. The 'womans choice' you so shrilly demanded. The temple of sex without encumbrances built upon a mountain of tiny corpses. And now you wonder why these kids look at sex like just another bodily function like pinching the morning loaf.
Underneath all this right-on forthrightness, I sense a kind of sadness and numbness.
What you sense is the pain in your own heart now that you've let a little light in and noticed for once where your path has led you. Where you've led these kids. Sex is not love, Naomi, and FWIW there's a lot more to sex than 'full frontal mechanics' too. You're married now, live a little.
I read it as a celebration of immorality, rather than a lament...
...Or BBC America.
I know of at least one woman who found a husband on the net. Knew her rather intimately in fact, from the day she married 'til the day she died. Doubt she ever would have found the man she married without the Internet, even though he only lived a few miles away.
If you'll read the great book by Bernard Goldberg "BIAS" and another excellent work called "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS" you'll discover that unless you're having sex with IV Drug Users or homosexual/bisexual men, you don't have much of a chance of getting HIV. Yes the disease no matter how CNN lies...is pretty much a threat only to the gay community. The liberals hate this...they know for them to get any funding for AIDS research, the whole world has GOT to believe that the Grim Reaper is going to come slithering down their street and turn into their driveway in the form of the hated AIDS virus just any moment. Sorry it isn't so. Does anybody here on FR even personally KNOW an AIDS victim except for maybe the hapless gay guy at work who's just "out?" NOT ME. Yet on Oprah just a few years ago she predicted that AIDS would infect 1 of every 5 people in this country by the year 2000! Has that happened? NOPE.
Read those books they will make you SO ANGRY at the liberals for deliberately wreaking such an outrageous LIE on the American public.
Actually, this whole post is based on a big misunderstanding. I thought this thread might have something randy for me to spring on the wife.
They are right wing, but they are right.
High-test idiot alert.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.