How To Have Sex On Purpose.

Captain Awkward. Or Sue.  I might have gotten my notes switched.

I had an amazing time in Chicago this weekend.   Everyone at the University of Chicago was absolutely wonderful to me, and the talk went great; the room was packed, the audience was great, and besides my little monologue, we had a really good discussion about negotiating sex and relationships.  And then I got to go to the Field Museum and meet Captain Awkward (the blogger) and Sue (the dinosaur).  It was so ridiculously awesome that I'm all out of eloquence and just going "so ridiculously awesome, you guys!"

This is a (rough) transcript of the talk I gave.  It's on a separate page because it's quite a bit longer than my usual posts.  And that's saying something.

Getting negotiation going.

First, some big news:

I am going to be speaking at the University of Chicago Sex Week!
More details available here, but the short version:

• 5:30 to 7:00pm on February 16th
• The eighth floor of Logan Center (directions on linked page) at the University of Chicago
• It's free and open to the public, and you can register here.

I’m going to be speaking about “How To Have Sex On Purpose”—about creating an intentional and conscious sexuality, informed by kink and poly ethics. Or, less pretentiously: how to go from “sex just happens between us” to “we do sex.” (Doing is better. Not just on, like, an ethical philosophical relational whatever level. Better on the “OH FUCK YEAH” level too.)

We now return you to your incredibly irregularly scheduled Pervocracy.

I never can find pictures that represent these abstract topics.
Here's the cuddly enema that hangs out next to my lab bench at school.

A question I got on Tumblr:

So, I've reread your blog posts on relationship negotiation several times each, because they're so awesome, so I was wondering if you might have some advice. Relationship negotiation meetings is something I'd really like to do. My partner likes the idea too. However, we're both worried that we'll just end up sitting there with neither of us having any idea what to say. Do you have any advice/resources for beginning/structuring such a meeting? Possible discussion questions/categories, etc?

The way these things begin is: awkwardly.  Sitting down and talking frankly about what you're doing in a relationship is awkward as fuck and I can't really sugarcoat that.  It's awkward because it's an activity that completely lacks a cultural script.  It's not something you're "supposed" to do, it's not something you get to watch others do in real life or in media, and the only version of it that does get talked about is one where "can we talk?" means "you're in trouble."  So this isn't going to go super smoothly the first time, and that's okay.  Being real and vulnerable enough to be awkward with each other is great for a relationship.

But how do you get it to go at all?

It starts before you meet, with both of you asking yourselves what you want to get out of the discussion.  What needs work in your relationship?  What's causing you difficulty right now?  If you could have the perfect relationship, how would it be different from this one?  It doesn't have to be all big-deal serious things.  "I need you to stop stealing the blanket" is every bit as legitimate to bring out here as "I need to know how you really feel about my body."  Plus, seeing how able you are to come to an amicable agreement on a simple thing like "we should have two twin-size blankets" is good motivation and practice for working on touchier issues.

I've said this before, in a different context, but any time you catch yourself thinking "well, of course what I would say if I could is XYZ, but I can't possibly," that's your brain telling you exactly what you need to say.  Also, any time something makes you think "I'm unhappy about XYZ, but obviously my partner knows that and has decided to do it anyway," definitely bring it up, because like 75% of the time the answer will be "oh shit, I had no idea that was a problem."

Come to the table with requests, not complaints.  Try to turn every statement about what's wrong into a statement about what you need instead.  (It's okay to not always have solutions in mind.  Just say "I need [thing] to stop/start/change" or "I want us to find a solution to [thing]," rather than "[thing] is bad.")  Even though it's almost the same statement, "I want to have more sex" is a lot easier and less upsetting to address than "I feel like we never have sex anymore."  It makes "we can totally have more sex, I'd like that too" into an agreeable response instead of a defensive one.

Make a date for your first discussion (we call ours the State Of The Relationship Address, because giving it a silly name makes it feel more like "our thing" and less like getting called to the principal's office) somewhere quiet that doesn't mind people camping out for a while--a park bench, a coffeeshop, or a particularly boring bar.

(Actually, it got updated to State Of Our Union, and then corrected to State Of Our Intersection, but anyway.)

Bring notes, and take notes.  It may be dorky--it may even help to acknowledge it's dorky and laugh at it--but nothing says "the serious part of this conversation has started now" like getting out a notepad with "need more attention paid to my clitoris" on it.

As for things to actually discuss, if "stuff that you want to be more better" feels like a hopelessly broad field:

• Sex! Are you happy with the amount you're having?  The type?  Who initiates?  Is there something you'd love to try but couldn't possibly bring up?  Is there something you secretly hate but have been politely not complaining about?
• How much time you spend together.  Too much, too little, too often spent fiddling around the house being bored?
• The path your relationship is on.  Is it something that's going to escalate along the traditional dating -> moving in -> marriage -> kids pathway, follow a less traditional path, or simply stay where it's at?  Obviously your partner can't promise you what the future will bring, but at least saying "I'm hoping if we stay together we can..." versus "I'm really not ever looking for..." can seriously clear the air.
• Fun things you'd like to do together.  Like I said, this doesn't have to all be Heavy Processing.  "We should plan a trip to Maine!" is worth bringing up too.
• Are you monogamous?  If so, what does that mean to you--just no sleeping with other people, or no expressing any kind of attraction, or something in between?  I know this one can be pretty easy to shove under the rug of "but I don't want anyone but you anyway," but it's good to clarify how you feel about flirting/kissing/dinner dates/etc. before you're debating about a specific incident.
• Are you open or poly?  If so, there's a whole bunch of issues that open up, but some relevant ones are: scheduling, how you can express it and what will comfort you if you feel jealous, how much you want them to tell you about what they do with other people, when/whether you want to meet their other partner(s), how you're handling safe sex issues.
• Their friends, your friends, mutual friends--is there anyone who's a major problem for you?  It's hard to ask a partner to drop a friend (although... depends what they've done), but they should at least know what you're feeling.  Or, conversely, do you want to spend more time with your/their/plural-your friends and feel more like you're partnered socially as well as romantically?
• If you live together, all the roommate issues that brings up--chores, budgeting, standards of cleanliness, making your sleep schedules work together, making your "I want to be totally undisturbed while I do this" versus your "I want to interact with you" needs work together.
• How you argue.  "We never argue" isn't good; it means at least one of you is suppressing their disagreement.  But obviously fighting rather than arguing is really, really bad.  Make it explicit between you that dissent is always okay and personal attacks never are, and that you will make every effort to remember the difference.
• That you love each other, and feel your love is worth working on.  Because the end result of all the above shouldn't just be a workable arrangement; it should be a workable arrangement with someone you find incredibly awesome.  Affirming that before, during, and after the meeting makes a big difference.

So that's kind of a lot!  I hope it helps.  I'm sure smart people will add things in the comments that I didn't even think of.

Cosmocking is next!

The Worst Thing In The World.

Because Nothing is Scarier.

I used to believe there was such a thing as The Worst Thing In The World.  It's a pretty nebulous thing, more a feeling than a thought, but God does it push you to irrational desperation to avoid it.

TWTITW is a yawning chasm of failure, constantly open beneath you, and there is no describing the horror at the bottom.  You just go around with the knowledge that if you make a mistake big enough, you can fall in.  If a relationship fails, if you get fired, if you get rejected... you'll fall into TWTITW, so you put everything you've goddamn got into that relationship.  You'll try anything to keep the relationship. Because it's literally unthinkable what will happen if it ends.

That unthinkability is how it traps you.  Because it's like Stephen King says in Danse Macabre--knowing that there's something horrible behind a door is terrifying.  Once you open the door, it's ruined.  Even if it's a really terrible thing behind that door, even if it's a six-foot cockroach, any horror you feel is going to be mixed with relief.  "Oh, thank God, it's just a six-foot cockroach. It could've been a sixty-foot cockroach."


I remember when my first "I love you" relationship ended.  I couldn't abide the thought.  I screamed.  I cried.  I tried to seduce him.  (While still crying. Sexxxay.)  I threatened to harm myself if he didn't come back.  I called him until he stopped taking my calls.   The ridiculous thing is, I didn't even like him that much.  It wasn't about getting the joy of the relationship back.  It was about avoiding TWTITW.

At some point I bawled myself to sleep, and the next morning I woke up and had to pee.  Because even in the wake of The Worst Thing In The World, you still have to pee.   I peed and went to work. It was the day after the end of eeeeeverything, but the bus still picked me up at 7:08 and I still got a half-hour and a chicken sandwich for lunch.  I was in pain, I was in bad pain, but I had thought it would be infinite pain, and it was finite.  It was only a six-foot cockroach.

I can't say "and then I never believed in TWTITW again," but it was the start of a journey.  Failing a class helped too, as did getting fired from a job, as did very messily breaking up with a very close friend.  Not because these things weren't bad.  All of them sucked, all of them cost me opportunities I would never get back, all of them caused real and irreparable harm, yet the morning after... I still had to pee.

Eventually I started to understand.  The next time a relationship ended, I cried and yelled plenty, but I didn't do anything inappropriate or harmful.  I didn't want to let it go, but I wasn't filled with blind animal terror of letting it go.  Breaking up was a bad thing--just not The Worst Thing.


I think belief in The Worst Thing In The World is at the heart of a lot of abusive and dysfunctional relationships.  I believe that many abusers believe that breaking up, being rejected, feeling emasculated, or losing their power in a relationship are TWTITW, and that's why they're willing to go to desperate lengths and hurt people to avoid it.

What I did to my ex-boyfriend--threatening myself and refusing to leave him alone--was abuse.  Fortunately it didn't go on very long, but it was abusive.  And I didn't do it because it felt good to scare and upset him.  I did it because I was so deeply afraid of losing him.  You get ugly when you're really afraid--anyone with a phobia can empathize with this.  If you're phobic of snakes and suddenly you fall in a snake pit, it doesn't matter what kind of nice gentle person you normally are. You'll do whatever it takes to get away--you'll step on people, you'll scream at them, you'll shove them out of your way even if it hurts them.  What I felt when I screamed "talk to me or I'll hurt myself" at my ex wasn't a power trip or an evil cackling glee. What I felt was snake-fleeing desperation.

I don't think this accounts for all forms of abuse, but I think it's a pretty common motivation.  I think cultural narratives of Perfect Love and Forever Love play into it big-time, too.  We don't teach kids "someday your Prince Charming will come, and hopefully you'll have good times together even if it doesn't work out in the end."  We teach them that people are expected to hook up permanently and seamlessly, and if they don't... we don't really address that possibility.  It's left hanging, unspoken but definitely undesirable, perfect conditions for setting something up as TWTITW.  The idea that maybe a relationship problem can't be fixed or maybe you will be single when you don't want to be, that these are painful but not infinitely painful, doesn't come up much in any media or education aimed at people under thirty.

I suspect a class on "rejection happens to the best of us, and it's painful and awkward for everyone involved, so here's how to take care of yourself during and after a rejection" would prevent more abuse than just repeating the messages of "no means no" and "hitting is bad."


Realizing that emotional pain is a cockroach, but only a six-foot cockroach, has given me comfort and self-control.  I can't say that being rejected or broken up with wouldn't hurt.  But I can say it would only hurt some.  I can face "some" if I have to.



[Obligatory awkwardly self-effacing comment about not writing an on-topic or timely post.  I'm gonna try super hard to get back on schedule and write a kink post Tuesday.]

Green flags.

There's a lot of articles out there about "red flags" to watch out for when you're dating someone.  My favorite is the discussion of "Darth Vaders" in the comments to this post by Captain Awkward. The concept can certainly be used for victim-blaming--saying "why didn't you spot all the red flags?" is a great way to kick someone when they're down--but it's a good tool for someone facing the dating world.

A couple years back, I went on a date with a guy, jokingly disagreed with him about some silly thing I don't even remember, and he hit me.  Straight-up slapped me on the arm, hard enough to hurt, not hard enough to bruise.  He wasn't my boyfriend or anything; this was our second date.  I yelled "Hey!" and he started laughing and told me it was a joke and it's not like he really hit hit me, and I was probably taking everything so seriously because I was an uptight feminist, but he was willing to forgive me for that so long as I went ahead and laughed with him at this wonderful joke he'd made.

He called me for a third date and I did not call back.  I was closer than I'd like to admit to being sucked into the "it was a joke! horseplay! are you really going to hold that against him?" thing, but then I thought in terms of red flags.  Physically striking someone on a date is one of the reddest flags there is.  Even though I couldn't quite convince myself that the hitting itself was wrong, I could understand that it was a sign of wrong things coming.  I think that understanding saved me a lot of pain.



But the mere absence of red flags doesn't really say anything good about a person, does it?  "I went on a date with the most wonderful guy!  I don't think he'll emotionally or physically abuse me!  What a catch!"

So let's talk about green flags.  (Um.  White flags?  ...Cyan flags?)  Signs that someone is mature enough for a relationship, that they have a healthy attitude toward relationships, and that they have the potential to be a caring and responsible partner.  This isn't about compatibility--maybe they're a lovely person but you like Kirk and they like Picard--but signs that they'll be a good partner to someone.

 Here are a few.  I bet there'll be better ones in the comments.

• They communicate, early and often, about what they're thinking and feeling, and they give you chances to do the same.
• They introduce you to their friends and want to meet your friends.
• They have a rich life outside of you. It can be many different things--job, hobby, friends, family--but they have something that makes them engaged and energized and has nothing to do with you.
• They're excited by the things that make you different, not just the things that make you conventionally attractive.
• They ask you for your opinion and advice as often as they offer theirs. 
• They're willing to do un-fun, un-sexy stuff with you; when you need someone to hold your hand in the ER or take you to the airport at rush hour, they're there for you.
• When talking about previous relationships that didn't work out, they admit fault and regret.
• They always ask you before making a decision that affects you, whether it's trivial like "where to sit in the theater" or major like "whether to have sex tonight."
• They respect your decisions and emotions even when you can't "logically" explain them.
• You feel safe disagreeing with them, calling them out when they screw up, or telling them you don't want to do something with them.
• They set boundaries with you sometimes, and they do it in a matter-of-fact, respectful way.

Your mileage may vary, some bad people will have a few green flags, some good people will be missing a few, all opinions given are only opinions, et cetera.  But when you're considering making a new person a major part of your life, I think it's important to think not just about "are there no bad signs?" but about "are there any good signs?"


P.S. While I was in the middle of writing this post, Captain Awkward put up a post on the exact same subject!  Curse you, synchronicity!  But if you don't mind reinforcing my terrible case of Blog Envy, I highly recommend you check her post out too.

Escalation.

This week in Developmental Psychology class I presented a paper on dating violence in teenage relationships.  I'm not going to rehash the paper here, because it's boring and Google-vulnerable, but I wanted to share the most interesting conclusion I found.

How much conflict there is in a relationship, or the seriousness of the conflict issues, are not predictors of whether there will be violence.  The biggest predictor is the degree to which conflicts in the relationship escalate.

The studies I read looked at dating violence, which is not the same thing as dating abuse, although obviously there's lots of overlap.  Dating violence simply means that there's hitting/shoving/slapping; emotional abuse and controlling behavior aren't factored in.  Dating violence, unlike abuse, is most often bidirectional--roughly 70% of the time both partners had struck each other.  (I wish there was more distinction drawn between a relatively equal fight and "bidirectional" violence that's really self-defense, but that's a hard thing to determine in one case, let alone establish statistics on.)

The takehome is that we shouldn't be teaching teenagers (and grownups) to avoid conflict.  We should be teaching them "don't hit people," but that's hardly sufficient.  What we should really teach is de-escalation.

De-escalation means bringing someone down from an irrational, emotionally hyperaroused, screamy-hitty state, but it does not mean appeasement.  It can sometimes mean talking someone down by comforting and reassuring them, but that's far from the only method and it's only useful if they're just mildly agitated.  If they're screaming or threatening violence, saying "honey please honey it's okay" is usually not the best way to de-escalate them.  Setting firm limits is not just more empowering for the de-escalator; it's more effective.



A full method for de-escalation is really a whole class, but here's some pointers for dealing with someone who's upset to the point that they're losing control:

•De-escalate yourself first.  If you're on the verge of screaming at the upset person or slapping some sense into them, either take some deep breaths and get yourself back to a "level tone of voice, no swear words, muscles relaxed" level of arousal, or walk away.  You can't make someone stop fighting you if you're fighting them.

•Project calmness.  No anger, no fear.  Use a low, quiet, almost monotonous conversational tone.  Talk to them like you're explaining the tax code.  Have your hands in view and open.  Stay out of their personal space and don't stare them in the eyes.  (These last two--having your hands up and keeping a little distance--will also make it easier to protect yourself if they lash out physically.)

Respond to questions with answers ("where is my fucking wallet?") with matter-of-fact answers like they asked you a question about the tax code.  Don't respond to questions without answers ("why are you such a jerk?") at all.  If they're ranting, let them rant.  Imagine the words are just meaningless chunks of wordmeat and patiently wait for them to run out of wordmeat.

•Don't try to win the fight.  It doesn't matter if you were originally talking about "who gets the last cookie" or "were you cheating on me"; if the fight has gotten to the point of insults, ranting, or yelling, presenting evidence and arguments is not helpful.  Your only goal right now is to encourage them to calm down; or to physically leave the situation if they don't.

•Set limits in the form of "If you X, I will Y." Not "don't talk to me like that!" but "if you keep talking in that tone of voice, I will end this conversation."  Make it something you can and will do.  Don't use it as a threat or a punishment; just remind them where the lines of reasonable adult behavior are.  At the same time, offer them positive options: "If you have a seat and tell me what you need me to do, I will listen."

•If they start to calm down, they'll probably be exhausted and trying to save face; they probably won't be able to rationally discuss the issue right away.  Give them time and space.

•If they threaten to physically harm you, take it seriously.  If they physically harm you just a little bit--just a little frustrated shove or a quick grab but then they let go--take it super seriously.  Get out.  Just leave.  This is not a matter for talking any more.  This is a matter for not-dying.  (Even if it's not nearly that severe, it's still extremely important to set the limit that "anything physical immediately revokes all your privileges to interact with me.")  Walk away.

If they're not calm when you come back, leave again and give them more time.  If they don't get calm, if they try to punish you for walking away instead of saying "I've cooled down now," leave for good and bring a goonish friend or the cops with you when you pick up your stuff.  I'm uncomfortably aware that doing this is not always possible, but if it's an option for you, take it.

•If you have to do this a lot, get out of the relationship if at all possible.  Things are not okay.  "De-escalator" is a role you can play in an extraordinary crisis, not over the course of a relationship.  Without using the "abuse" word or not, if you're frequently getting in fights of escalating severity, it's not okay, it's probably not going to get better on its own, and it's not safe.  Relationships should be better than that.

Step One.

There's a lot of talk out there about how to meet the person of your dreams. Or how to pick up someone to screw. Or a whole lot of things in between--how to initiate the sexual/romantic relationship you desire, and how to "upgrade" that relationship to greater intimacy.

Not a lot about maintenance. There's discourse about how to fix a failing relationship or spice up a boring one, but when's the last time you read a book or an article or had a discussion about how to simply have an ongoing relationship? Whether you're one-night-stand partners or lifetime spouses, the primary task of a relationship--and it's a learned skill and a difficult one--is simply being in that relationship. Doin' some relating.

Meeting Rowdy was not, in itself, super rewarding. It was nice and all, but filled with apprehension and eagerness about what was to come--I didn't go "I MET A DUDE!", fist-pump, and accept my trophy. Meeting was nothing but the beginning. And the moment Rowdy and I first said "I love you" was wonderful, but it had nothing, absolutely nothing on the following months of going around actually being in love.

Yep, those months have been wonderful, but they've also been full of challenges and questions. How much time do we spend together, and what are we going to do with that time? Now that we've agreed we're going to have sex, what kind of sex do we have and how often? What does being in love mean to us and how do we express it? I've got this boyfriend now--what the hell do I do with him?

If we can't answer these questions, the fact that we merely started being in lust/love is... worthless.

"How to find sex/love" is only Step One. Steps Two through--through until you break up or someone dies--are "now that you've got sex/love, what the hell do you do with it?"

Relaxing the sexy.

I hate being "sexy." I'm bad at it--I don't have a "sexy" body, I'm awkward in "sexy" clothes, and I never learned exactly how makeup works. And it just feels wrong to me. When I dress up as conventionally "sexy" as I can, I feel like I'm in an elaborate costume; when I'm in ratty jeans I feel like I'm just myself wearing my clothes.

But I tend to put on at least a half-assed "sexy" costume when I'm trying to meet new guys--I won't go full monty as I can't do that without looking absurd, but I'll at least wear sort of a nice top and some eyeshadow. I tend to assume--stupidly, insecurely, but I keep doing it--that "guys like sexy" and thus I'll endure "sexiness" to snag me a man.

As soon as I get in a relationship, every time, I stop the "sexy" completely. The third date is pretty much the last time you'll see makeup on my face or product in my hair. I just can't keep up the charade.

But, despite appearances, it's not a matter of turning slovenly and complacent. Because while I drop the "sexy," I never drop the sexy. I've never been in a relationship where the sex--or the sexual experimentation and adventure and enthusiasm--dropped off at all. I love fucking, I love finding new ways to fuck, I love talking about sex and being sexual, I love pleasing my partner and oh do I love it when they please me. I may show up to your house with my hair in a hopeless tangle and mustard on my shirt, but I'm still coming there because I want to have insane screaming orgasms with you.

And hell, we both know I'm going to be naked and have my face and hair totally smeared up fifteen minutes after I walk in the door anyway.

I'm still unsure if the conclusion from this is to show up to first dates in my hospital sweatshirt and painting pants. On the one hand, that avoids anyone feeling like they've been bait-and-switched, and it screens for the (minority, but quite extant) awesome dudes who like me better that way. On the other hand, it seems like un-"sexy" clothes can convey the message that I'm not interested in sex, and that's not something I generally want a date to think. Hyperfeminine clothes and behavior may be utterly unappealing to me, but they do seem to send the "dick wanted, apply within" message much more clearly than looking boring and just being sexy inside.

Maybe I should show up in the hospital sweatshirt, but pin on a long explanatory note about how in my perception this is what I wear when I'm horny.

Desired/Desirer.

I got an email the other day offering me "tribute" for my "time" as a dominatrix. A little annoyed and a little amused, I shared this with a male friend. "It must be interesting being a woman," he said.

In other words, to be the desired instead of the desirer. Because he actually is a top, and although he's young and good-looking and lots of fun, ain't no one paying him. There aren't a lot of men who get paid for sexual acts with women, and guys don't spend a lot of time fending off unsolicited offers to get paid for fucking women. (If they did, they'd swiftly realize that "I'm not someone you'd actually like, and I'm not interested in making this good for you, so would it help if I asked you to break the law for me?" is not all that that awesome a proposition.)

I try to not be too sexist in my relationships with boys, but I have to admit, I sometimes fall into the "desired" mode, just because it's available to me and it's so easy. I let myself be picked up more often than I attempt to pick up, I receive more date-requesting emails and phone calls than I send, and although I sometimes go halves on dates and sometimes let the guy pay if he insists, I never insist on paying for him. I should, because in the long run it would help combat the highly damaging "woman has something man wants" sexual paradigm, but I never feel that I have to, and hey, food's not cheap. Taking the pursuer role would even the Great Balance Of Gender Roles, but it just wouldn't make my life any easier.

It's unfortunate, though, because guys do have something I want, something I would pursue and possibly even pay for if I had to. Society just doesn't force me to prove that. I accept the attention of pursuer-mode guys because free food and free sex is too good a deal to pass up, not because the food compensates me for the sex--but it looks the same from the outside.

Short iPod Post: Sum of the parts.

Sometimes I'm frustrated that I don't know exactly what I'm into. I have some general ideas on the physical stuff--biting yes please, paddling no thank you, clit stimulation no thank you, G-spot stimulation OHHH FUCK FUCCCKK AHHH--but a lot of the big questions are unanswered. Like, would I ever be okay with monogamy? Do I want a relationship with a for-reals power dynamic or just play? Do I ever want to be forced into things I really don't want, or do I want to keep it strictly on the "oh no, not the briar patch" level? Do I ultimately want to settle down with a house and kids and a picket fence? Do I enjoy switching ever? Would I enjoy performing purely nonsexual service? How serious a relationship do I want at this point in my life, or do I prefer being single?

And the answer is not, I think, that I need to navel-gaze until I answer these things. The answer is "well, with whom?" Because it's no use thinking too hard about what I'd do with a faceless gray box of a partner who dropped out of the sky on me. In reality, every relationship I've had has developed a different dynamic, and one that was different from all my partner's previous relationships as well. Chemistry isn't about the elements that just sit there; it's about the reactions, and I can never predict what those will be. (Which is why I flunked out of pre-med.) What I want in a relationship is a moot point--I won't know until I find out what I want in a relationship with Joe.

I feel like some people approach dating with an idea of what they want, and the question they want to answer is "how close is this person to what I'm looking for?" I don't. The only question I have is "do I like this person?", because the way in which I like them has to reach its own equilibrium.

A Grand Game.

[This was the "too grouchy" post. Since people are talking about it anyway, what the hell. Just let me note that I don't think all guys are like this and I don't play stupid games with all guys--this applies only to guys who answer "you're nice but you're not my type" with "no, no, you need to give me a chance."]



I invented a game to play on OkCupid! It's called the...

Get A Guy To Stop Talking To You Game!

Here's how you play:
-Have an OkCupid account with a reasonably appealing picture and profile, identifying yourself as a straight woman.

-Log on to the IM system, and wait for a guy to message you. Doesn't take long, generally.

-Talk to him in good faith long enough to determine what sort of guy he is. If he seems like a cool and attractive guy, ask him out or arrange to talk again. If he's not your type, let him down easy. If letting him down easy doesn't work, play the game.

-The game has only two rules:
1) Promptly reply to all of his IMs. Within a couple minutes at the most, preferably instantly, write something back to whatever he says.
2) Try, without hitting "ignore" or logging off or ceasing your responses, to get him to stop talking to you.

-Within the framework of "keep replying," you can say anything. You can make yourself sound bugfuck insane or hilariously bitchy--usually both! You can tell stories about being dangerously obsessed with all your previous partners or speculate how tiny the guy's penis is. You can whip out racist jokes, confessions that you never bathe, and direct insults against the guy and everything he cares about. You can even tell the guy that you're playing this game! And you can most certainly say every variation on "No, I'm not interested, please stop talking to me."

-The game can go on for hours, and I usually run out of time and have to hit "ignore" or shut down IM before I win. My win rate is definitely well under 50%.



I think this game teaches us two things: first, that sometimes I'm an asshole on the Internet; and secondly, that this is what they call "rape culture." The acting crazy/mean is just fucking around, but the shocking part is how my stated wishes don't count for shit. It's truly amazing how many times I can say, in so many words, "stop talking to me," and yet as long as I keep responding the guy will never do what I explicitly asked him to. (And if I merely act very uncomfortable and chilly and reluctant but don't actually say no... forget it, that never stops anyone.) As long as I stay "in the room" with him, it doesn't matter how many times I say in clear blunt words to leave me alone, he never will.

I think the reason this happens is because I don't open with "fuck off"; I do the initial feeling-out stage in genuine good faith. So they get this image of me as a relatively nice and open person before I turn into a person who's repeatedly telling them to fuck off, and somehow the mental transition never happens. I can't be nice and not want to talk to them! DISSONANCE! So they persist, literally forever, and disregard my stated wishes over and over in doing so.

There's probably also some sense that I'm "shit testing" them, that I'm making a game of pushing them away just so they can prove their ardor. I suppose I am, in that I keep talking to them at all, but still--why would a guy want to play this game with a woman? And isn't it a little scary that there's literally no way I can use words to tell him I'm not playing?

And this is why women don't smile at strangers.



After I lose the game and have to hit "ignore" or "log off", most of these guys send me followup emails, saying they'd really like to talk some more or clear up any misunderstandings.

I don't want cock.

I got a random message on OkCupid today, and checking it meant my status got reset to "Online Today," and that meant that I got clusterfucked with messages from dudes. (I'm hot. Oh yeah.) Which led to making one date (Wednesday, and it's more of a "let's be friends" thing, but hey, I like friends) and ignoring about fifty guys in disgust.

Why? Because they wanted to fuck me, and nothing else. They were, to be fair, very clear about this. On some level I appreciate that. But on another level I can't help but be insulted by guys offering their cocks but specifying with a sort of terrified urgency that this doesn't mean they would date me or anything.

It made me realize that, at this point in my life, I don't want cock. Whaaa? That is, I don't want just cock. The offer of vanilla sex without strings means nothing to me. Not to call a thousand MRAs down on my ass, but I can get laid. (That's Thursday night.) If "laid" comes with absolutely no other benefits--BDSM play or a relationship that's at least friendly--it's really not interesting to me.

I also have issues with any guy who's too vociferous on the "but I wouldn't date you, are you crazy?" I'm not opposed to friends-with-benefits arrangements, but that means friends with benefits, not frosty strangers with exactly one benefit. I also like my friends-with-benefits to find a way to negotiate the arrangement without practically spelling out that I'm not good enough to date but this is my exciting consolation prize.

I have an OkCupid account to meet people. I've got two penises in my bedside drawer already, and I guarantee you at least one of them is bigger than yours.

Fucking While Feminist.

The theme of the "Dating While Feminist" event is based on an interview Jacklyn Friedman gave on the subject of "Fucking While Feminist." (Despite the title, she's actually talking about dating, so the euphemism-shift isn't unreasonable.)

I have to admit, the part of the interview that jumped out at me first was:
I feel like the same thing happened with the guy I dated for two years. He liked the idea of being a guy who would be with someone like me, but ultimately it turned out that he wanted someone who wouldn’t challenge him as much, a person who was easier and quicker to sweep away. I got evidence of that when, within three months of breaking up with me, he was dating a 23 year old who lists her political views on Facebook as “moderate.”
Because I'm 24 years old, and I list my political views on Facebook as "moderate." So that's just funny.

But unintentionally on-the-nose insults inside, the gist of the interview is: how do you find a man who understands and agrees with feminism, and also makes you all squishy in your panties?

The good news is, for me, the two are increasingly the same damn thing. Lately, I've been finding that a guy who acts creepy or disrespectful about women shuts down the panty-squish so fast that it's not even a question. I believe that seeing women as people is the first step in really understanding what turns women on. Something as ridiculously self-evident as "touch her on the vagina" is often beyond the comprehension of guys who are expecting a Madonna or whore, an enigma or fucktoy, rather than a horny human being.

A couple of guys were shocked that I like to play various games in bed, because I’m a feminist. That’s always really interesting to me. I’m always like, ‘Are you kidding me? The feminists I know are the craziest women in bed you can find!” Those are the moments where I feel like a one-woman feminist PR machine. I’m instructing the world one man at a time that feminists are really fun to sleep with.

The "feminists are good in bed" meme is kind of a tricky thing, because I never want to fall into making it sound like that's the point of feminism, or a reason to play along with the silly broads. But it's true, and it's not a coincidence. Feminist women don't worry that being wild in bed will tip them disastrously from Madonna to whore, and feminist men don't think that giving women pleasure is irrelevant or impossible.

How about being feminist, submissive, and dating? Actually, that makes it much easier. Sure, there are dominant guys out there who really think that all women should serve all men, but for the most part, being kinky makes you much more aware of how artificial and arbitrary dominant/submissive roles are. Most dominants are very aware that only subs are submissive, if you get my drift--that submission is a thing certain women (and men) deliberately take on, not any kind of natural state of the gender. Limits, negotiation, and communication are also huge things in BDSM--not only can you not assume a women is submissive, you can't assume a submissive wants a certain kind of sex or play. I'll take this any day over the usual vanilla assumption that sex is a "package deal" and that if any sex at all was agreed to, nothing short of anal has to be explicitly negotiated.

Ultimately, what makes a date "feminist"? To me, it's not politics or labels. It's the simple ability to treat women (and men!) like they're people. People who have their own thoughts, live their own lives, make their own choices, set their own limits, and deserve respect even when you don't understand or agree. If a guy can do that, I think it shows in a lot of what he says and does, and it makes him so fucking sexy.

Go big or go home.

Sign a first date is mediocre:
"So what do you do for a living? ...That's very interesting. What made you choose that career?"

Sign a first date is going either really well or really poorly:
"It's not my thing, but I think that as long as the animal is on top, bestiality porn is an ethical gray area."

In so many words.

For the longest time I agonized about how to say certain things. How do you ask a boy if he likes you? How do you ask for freaky things in bed? How do you tell your friends, when it's relevant or it's just gnawing at you, that your love life is a little different? How can you possibly communicate these concepts?

The answer, I'm finding is, "in so many words." Just say it. So how do you find out if a boy likes you? Turns out the magic words are: "[Boy], do you like me?" There's no trick to it, there's no secret code; the way to say a difficult thing is simply to say it.

What I was really asking, of course, is how I could say these things without taking any risks. I didn't want to know how to tell if a boy liked me, I wanted him to like me. I wanted to know some magical way to ask that the answer would always be yes. My pretended difficulty in asking was really a difficulty in hearing the truth.

There were two separate difficulties within that: the fear of opening Schrödinger's box, and the fear of asking wrong. The first fear is real, but useless. It's the feeling that "right now there's a 50% chance that he likes me, so I can enjoy the feeling of being theoretically 50% liked! If I find out for sure, he could say "no" and the waveform will collapse and I'll have 0% of a boy!" I was so afraid of finding a dead cat that I never looked in the box and ended up with no cat at all.

The second fear, that of asking wrong, was even harder to get over. This is the idea--the hallucination, really--that there's a way to phrase the question that will make a "no" into a "aww, you're really sweet but I don't feel that way right now, but things are still developing"; and another way that will make a "no" into a "no way, not ever, how could you even ask, in fact I hate you." Or worse yet, that the way I asked could somehow in itself make the difference between "yes" and "no."

But the truth is, I think, that people aren't really that subtly and dramatically influenced by my phrasing or timing. People's opinions aren't subatomic particles; they aren't irreparably changed by being observed. Even a clumsy question will get a sweet response out of a sweet guy, and there's definitely no remotely honest way to ask that will turn a "no" into a "yes." The question is simply "do you like me?" and the answer has already been formed in his mind and all your previous interactions.

The search for the magical phrase is over. The search for the way to suss things out without asking asking is finished. The way to say a thing is to simply say it, and whether things go your way or not (sometimes really not), at least you know what the hell is going on.

Locus of control.

Okay, sleep deprivation temporarily resolved, back to putting effort into this blog. Apologies for the less-effort, I know it's been showing lately.

---

The ancient Greeks believed there were two kinds of fate. There's the kind that you earn in consequence for your actions, and the kind that just happens because it's fate. Maybe your goats died because you had it coming, or maybe they just got sick. Consequences and destiny.

(I feel bad saying "the ancient Greeks" like that's one thing, but I'm having no luck looking up the actual source on this. I want to say it was the Cynics but I'm not sure. Either that or it was some idiot at a Pagan group making up totally deep, man shit and claiming it was the ancient Greeks and now I'm repeating it as fact. Anyway.)

This is a dichotomy that I think is important--and difficult--in the dating and meat markets. Sometimes people are attracted or not attracted because of you, and sometimes because of them, and usually it's a complex combination of both. Which is more correct: "He wasn't attracted to me," or "I wasn't attractive to him"?

Both attitudes become toxic when taken too far. Make your sexual locus of control entirely internal and you start acting entitled if you have a big ego or self-critical if you have a small one--sex becomes about what you deserve. You can also fall into obsessively rating yourself and others, since if only your perspective matters, attractiveness can be considered objective.

An entirely external locus of control, however, leaves you helpless. You feel resentment toward people who aren't attracted to you and a disturbing gratitude toward those who are, and view your preferred gender as a complete mystery. You also don't try very hard, because sex will come to you or not, there's nothing you can do. True love will see right past my stained sweatpants and shallow assholes will never like me anyway, so I won't change anything.

I skew toward internalizing; every time I get rejected in ways big and small I'm not angry but constantly concerned what I did wrong. (This is not just in sex; 98% of the time a non-crazy person calls me an asshole, my response is "oh God I'm so sorry" rather than "fuck you, asshole!") At the same time, I'm not all the way there, and I'm progressively getting better at understanding that someone else's decisions regarding me are not 100% about me.

I can't help but notice from my fortune-cookie descriptions that PUA is basically all about going from an external locus of control to an internal one--albeit usually way too far over, straight into "but if I'm sufficiently awesome no one should ever say no" territory.

As my usual radical-moderate self, I can only say that the answer is somewhere in the middle. You have some input, but sometimes you'll just run up against fate, and you have to be okay with that. People make decisions about you, so look good and be charming; but people make decisions for all kinds of reasons, so don't think it's all the failure or success of your charm. Finding this middle is ridiculously hard, and requires a very careful balancing of humility and confidence, but it's necessary or you'll end up one kind of crazy or another. In sex and in life.

---

I hate it when people call women "females." I have one friend who does it because she was in the military and it was standard practice there, and occasionally I'll say it when I specifically mean biological females rather than women, but 98% of the time it's douchebaggery. Rule of thumb: if you say "females and males" it's okay, but if you say "females and guys/men," you're probably a douchebag.

OkStupid.

OkCupid (I know, I know, but 98% of my social life is coordinated online, so it seems stupid to say "online dating is for losers!" in light of that--especially if you say that online...) has a feature where it displays how often you reply to messages. You get a little green light if you "reply often," an orange one if you "reply selectively," and a red light if you "reply very selectively."

Roughly ten seconds after opening my account, I had a red light. I Googled "'replies very selectively' + OkCupid", because I was curious where they drew the line. I didn't find a clear answer on that, but I found a huge number of blog and forum posts complaining that girls with a red light are stuck-up picky bitches who expect perfection and won't give guys in their league the time of day.

Well gosh, I'd hate to look like I'm stuck-up. I resolve to truly engage with the gentlemen who give me their time and put themselves out there emotionally!

NEW MESSAGE FROM OKCUPID: "wats up lol"
NEW MESSAGE FROM OKCUPID: "more coushin for the fuckin"
NEW MESSAGE FROM OKCUPID: "I have not had sex in two years and I hate it and I am getting bored with pleasuring myself all the time..."
NEW MESSAGE FROM OKCUPID: "do u do anal?"

(These are not jokes. These are not exaggerations. These are copy-pastes.)

Yeah... I don't think I have the intestinal fortitude to earn myself that green light.

Excuses.

I can't date now, I'm about to move across the country.
I can't date now, I'm unemployed.
I can't date now, I just started a new job.
I can't date now, I'm moving again.
I can't date now, my room is full of boxes. (What? This makes perfect sense!)
I can't date now, I should lose like 50 pounds first.
I can't date now, then I might not be able to have random sex.
I can't date now, what if he's not okay with me being kinky and having a sex blog.
I can't date now, then I'll be stuck with him if he's not perfect.

And most evil of all: I can date now, but only if a date falls into my fucking lap, because looking for dates, that's pathetic. Apparently the only thing that's non-pathetic is if a guy just stops me on the street and is smitten with my beauty without me even saying hi.

So yeah, I should probably start looking for dates, because even though part of me clearly likes being single, I also kind of miss the fun you can have in a relationship. My life is never going to be 100% stable and perfect, and waiting for it to be is just a lousy excuse.

Semi-Breakup.

I just told a guy I didn't want to see him anymore. We'd only had three dates, but two of them were sleepovers and he was taking things pretty seriously, to the point where I felt I had to explicitly say I was dumping him, it wouldn't have been right to take the "just let him go to voicemail" way out.

I feel kinda crappy about it, because it wasn't a clear-cut thing, there wasn't a great reason. He wasn't a fuckup or mean to me or bad in bed. It was just... you know how sometimes you talk to someone, and the conversation just flows, and you can go for hours just coming up with crazy ideas and making each other laugh? And you know how other times you talk to someone, and it's not bad, but you can never get beyond pleasantries and politeness? Talking to him was the latter.

He was upset when I told him! And he wasn't a bad person! Augh! I hated doing it and I still have that "you idiot, why are you throwing away a perfectly good boy" feeling, but I felt like we were going to become involved while still not able to talk to each other, and the sooner I cut that off, the less it would hurt.

Bleh. I am not an experienced dumper. I've only explicitly and one-sidedly dumped one other guy in my life, and he kinda-sorta raped me so it wasn't that hard a decision. This dumping-a-nice-person-stuff sucks ass.

Words for women who have sex.

Kinky does not mean slutty. Slutty does not mean easy. Slut does not mean whore. Slut does not mean bitch. And normal does not mean "none of the above."



Kinky: I am kinky. This means that I enjoy painful or otherwise unusual activities sexually. This does not mean that I have more sex, am hornier, or have sex with more people than the average woman. (I do, but that's coincidental.) A kinky person can be monogamous, abstinent until marriage or serious commitment, or even celibate.

Also, someone who is sexually enthusiastic, but does nothing weird or hitty in bed, is not "kinky," they're just... sexually enthusiastic. And likewise someone who is kinky can be totally boring in bed, lemme tell ya.

Slutty: I am somewhat slutty. This means I have sex with a large number of people without romantic commitment. I say "somewhat" because I'm slowing down a bit as of late; uncommitted sex itself is awesome, but the trappings--terrible sex, creepers, douchebags, people who expect too much after, people I find myself expecting too much from after--have forced me to ease back on my slut frequency. I'm still a slut though; what I am not is...

Easy: I am not easy. Easy would mean that I was an indiscriminate slut, and I am not; I sleep with a large number of people but they are all (ideally...) people I find attractive and trustworthy. "I fuck a lot of people" is a very different condition from "I'll fuck anyone."

Whore: I am not a whore. A whore has sex for money; or more generally, a whore has sex to get something. I have sex to have sex. I'd rather buy my own dinner and drinks, but if a guy insists on paying, that's just a favor he's decided to do me. I'm amazed by the attitude some guys have that a hooker costs $150 but an ordinary woman shouldn't accept a $3 cocktail if she doesn't intend to spread 'em.

Bitch: I am not a bitch. Well, not for refusing sex, anyway. Here's a thing I think certain men don't understand: my default state is "not having sex with you." I hope that doesn't sound hostile or egotistical, I mean it literally. Not having sex with you isn't an action I take, it's what I was planning to do. If I get hot for you I might change my plans, if I can and if I feel like it. (I think a dude yesterday thought I was brushing him off when he chatted me up at 6:50 and I said "I'm meeting people at seven"; dude, you were totally cute, I was actually meeting people.) I know it's hard when a major physical and emotional need depends upon the decisions of others, but from my point of view it's still my decision to make.

Gah, I always sound so cold when I talk about these things. As if saying "I'll decide whether I want to have sex with you" was somehow equivalent to "NO WAY LOSER HA HA." Deciding includes saying yes! I actually feel rather guilty and awkward saying no to guys, but the alternative is saying yes to literally anyone who asks, and that's just not going to work for me.

Normal: Having weird sex, having uncommitted sex, having sex with whoever, having sex for trade, not having sex with whoever--all are incredibly commmon activities and very normal. I can't say if the majority of people do these things, but millions do, and every section above describes some permutation of a normal sex life. Whether you say "normal" with pride or disdain, sluts and kinksters and whores are normal. Sex is as ordinary as eating tomatoes.

Hell, you can even buy it in a can. Although if you want Italian seasoning you'll have to add your own.

Leagues.

The concept of "out of your league" in dating is one of those areas where my ideals sometimes get muddled up with my real-life experience. On the one hand, it's absolutely not true that if you're physically different or just not conventionally beautiful you need to stick with your own ugly kind. All kinds of different people can and do come together. On the other hand, people who are very different-looking but insist on a swimsuit-model partner are being, if not hypocritical, at least unrealistic.

It's a sticky situation to talk about, since of course people are attracted to traits they don't have themselves. Lots of pretty people have ugly (er, frequently-socially-considered-ugly) partners, and then again lots of pretty and ugly people aren't attracted to ugly people and I'm not about to tell them that it's their civic duty to get attracted. But at the same time, our partner preferences aren't determined entirely by random dice-roll. When an ugly person is unhappily single because they will only consider gorgeous people as partners--well, they shouldn't date someone they don't schwing for, and it's certainly not impossible... but. But. You know? But. Sticky.



God, I wish I was an asshole blogger. I wouldn't be tying myself in knows with this shit about "it's not my place to tell anyone what to do" and "everyone's preferences are different" and "we shouldn't assume younger and thinner is prettier" and all these other things--that I do actually believe--that make it so damn hard to be blunt.

If I were an asshole blogger I could just come out and tell people that you've got no goddamn business saying "I'm fat and 50 and I'm only attracted to thin 20-year-olds," and no, that's not insensitivity to fat 50-year-olds, that's just the slightest connection to Planet Fucking Earth. And you're insensitive to fat 50-year-olds if you won't date one, jerk! And then I'd stick my tongue out. And fart.



Man, the other day I read a blog post saying you shouldn't use "stupid" as an insult because that's insensitive to mentally disabled people and to people who've had fewer educational opportunities. And the horrifying part was that I found myself going along with it for a bit, nodding in agreement because of course I don't want to hurt innocent people with my words--and then I realized how... how stupid it is to be so goddamn sensitive you can't say anything more opinionated than "I like bunnies." Now, I won't use "retarded" as an insult. I'm not committing myself to insensitivity as a lifestyle. But I can't walk on eggshells around everything that isn't bunnies.