 |
August 12, 1999
|The Lusty Lady #1 |The Lusty Lady #2 | The Lusty Lady #3
Sex vs. Love
When I talk about sexuality or tell people that I am a sex-positive feminist, I often get questioned on whether I am slighting love, losing romanticism for erotic adventure. This love vs. sex debate is vexing because I've never claimed to be against love, and I believe that love and sex have important roles to play, both separately and alone. I think that people who are in love and in long-term relationships get threatened when they hear talk of polyamory and sexual adventure because they feel that those acts are devoid of emotion, romanticism, or love. I am not going to claim that love is foremost on people's minds at play parties and similar events, but that's not the point. It's wrong to create a hierarchy of sexuality for anyone but our own selves. It is perfectly fine if your life goal is a monogamous relationship and that's where you feel your sexual needs are satisfied, but to extrapolate that onto the entire culture is oppressive because it tells people who don't fit that mold that they are abnormal. Furthermore, I don't think this dichotomy, like most dichotomies, is a true split at all. One can believe in love, feel love, and still want hot sex.The relationship between sex and love is of two overlapping circles, with parts of each separated out and a place where they join. Many believe this joining to be the apotheosis of sexual ecstasy: incredible sex with someone they love, which then reinforces the feelings the people have for each other. I believe in that too, and I agree that intimacy with someone you're in a relationship with definitely has a different quality to it than sex with a stranger. BUT I don't place a judgment on which is better. Kind of like separate but equal:each can be fulfilling in its own way. I think that many people find anonymous, random sex a bit disconcerting and not all that erotic because they miss the level of human connection that happens when you're partnered up one-on-one, when you share a history with someone, when communication happens without words, but with bodies. This is a vital part of many people's sexual life, but that does not mean it is the objective ideal for everyone.
Writer Jill Nagle says that sex is over signified in our culture. I think what she means is that we place such an emphasis on sex that we want it to do more than it can ever possibly do. We often want sex to substitute for love, for communication, for many amorphous things that we might not be getting in other areas of our lives. And the fact is, we can't place that burden on sexuality, or it will lose its special qualities. Sex CAN be all of these things, but it cannot take the place of any of these. When we equate sex unequivocally with love, we shortchange ourselves by stating that our sexual desires are not worthy enough in and of themselves; they need to be coupled with some emotional component to be worthy, otherwise they are "just sex." Well, its time we stood up for "just sex." "Just sex" is not "just" anything its part of who we are, its our right and our lifeblood. Susie Bright writes in her forthcoming book Full Exposure that "[s]exuality is not a frill, and it's not a luxury appearance; it's a part of your life whether you're flush or famished, living under dictators or parliamentarians. It has its own unique relationship to history, and it will not shut up."
Women's romance novels have been greatly criticized for perpetuating the idea that women really want romance, not sex, but the truth is most women want both, and we shouldn't have to sacrifice either. The problem with ranking sex in a love vs. non-love way is that we then do not give enough credit to love or sex. If sex can only take place within the context of "love," then we push people towards falling in love with people that they may only want to have sex with. We brand girls sluts and look poorly upon men who have many sexual partners as somehow less moral than people who stick with one partner, regardless of the quality of that relationship. But the truth is, just because you love someone does not make them a great lover. And here I am not saying that you should leave someone if they're not a great lover, but that the two really aren't connected. It may feel better emotionally to sleep with someone you love, but their sexual prowess is something separate from their personality. If you are waiting to meet that perfect person before you have sex, I think you're missing out on some great sex you could be having. Further, sex can bring you closer to a person, can connect you in important ways - the equation does not have to be fall in love and then have sex, it can often be the other way around.
Our clits and cunts and dicks are just as important as our hearts, and we need to keep that in mind. To assume that those who discuss, teach, and explore sex are emotionally cold is not only horribly false, but also denies to us a range of emotions; there is more to our emotional landscapes than love. Maybe there aren't names for some of the emotions we feel, or the words - like, tenderness, caring, lust, beauty, happiness - may not be wide enough to encompass the feelings that those who provoke our passion bring to us. The only thing categorically equating love with sex does is make those who fuck without love feel guilty. Equating the two does justice to neither, because it ignores the reasons we need both sex and love. We may get sex from some people and love from others, or both from the same person(s), and there is nothing wrong with that. We also assume that when you're in love with one person, you shouldn't be lusting after another, which is totally off base. We can love person X and still fuck or want to fuck person Y, and yet our culture assumes that by fucking person Y (or even thinking about it!) we are saying that we have no feelings for person X. Maybe if we could broaden our minds and see that one-size-fits-all heterosexual monogamy is not the answer for everyone (anyone?), then we'd realize that love and sex are really more powerful than we had assumed, and need to be treated with a bit more complexity and respect than they are now.
One time I was having a threesome with a straight couple I know, and in the middle of a really intense orgasmic moment, the woman screamed out "I feel so alive!" To me, THAT is the goal we should be striving for, whether that feeling comes from sex or love or both. That is the high that I hope both sex and love bring to us, the high that makes me want to share my sexual thoughts and experiences with people, the high that I get from my favorite vibrator, the high that I get from kissing my boyfriend, or from cuddling with a girl I have a big crush on. By placing so many restrictions on what is right and proper, on how sex and love should fall into the slots, we lose sight of the unpredictability of our bodies and minds, we ignore the surprises that await us, the simple things that can bring us the greatest delights. We put sex on a pedestal, make it some special crystal vase that should only be used on certain special occasions, lest it become tarnished and worn. The only thing I'm worried about becoming tarnished and worn is our souls, what brings us to that "alive" moment, what gives us the capacity to feel love and lust.
We will not get worn out from loving too much or having too much sex with too many people I don't believe that our capacity for love is finite. Neither sex nor love are always all they're cracked up to be, but each has the potential to be mind blowing, emotion expanding, hot and sensual. If we remember that, we can have both better sex and better relationships, and that's something hopefully everyone can agree upon.
Recommended reading:
Gender Outlaw: Men, Women and the Rest of Us by Kate Bornstein
Pomosexuals : Challenging Assumptions About Gender and Sexuality edited by Carol Queen and Lawrence Schimel
Real Live Nude Girl by Carol Queen
Bi Any Other Name : Bisexual People Speak Out edited by Loraine Hutchins and Lani Kaahumanu
"Blindsexual" by Susie Bright, in one of her books (sorry, I forget which one)
Anything That Moves (http://www.anythingthatmoves.com)Rachel Kramer Bussel
Copyright 1999 Rachel Kramer Bussel
|
Copyright 1999 Check This Out!
|