sexual politics of sex

There's probably going to be some TMI in this post because I can't conceptualize how to say everything that's whirling around in my head without throwing in a personal example or two. So, y'know, if you have a weak stomach, look away.

Have you heard the Larry King stuff? Apparently his breakup with wife #whatever is due to his cheating with her sister. Dude. Of all the women in the world, you gotta sportfuck a close blood relative of your spouse? That's...an unfortunate choice. But never mind Mr King's lack of personal judgment. I want to talk some about a point that's been brought up in response to it.

It's been opined in the press that this is all the fault of Viagra (Cialis, etc) because Mr King is part of the first generation of elderly men who didn't have to give up on sexual intercourse. I mean, I'm sure that of course there have always been outliers: healthy and randy guys in their 70s and 80s who could get it up and keep it up long enough to complete the act on at least a fairly regular basis. But I think we'll agree that, generally, that has probably been the exception rather than the rule and that most people, before the invention of these pharmaceuticals, would assume that after a certain age sex would become a rare or nonexistent experience. If, of course, we're defining sex as intercourse, more about which very soon.

I think we also would all agree that the invention of these drugs has not always been a boon to these elderly guys' wives. Many of them are of an age to have been brought up with the idea that wimmins don't like seks, so they never let themselves. Or perhaps, their husbands sucked in bed. It happens. In any case, these ladies might well have been happy to stop doing it, and the introduction of the magic pill means that damn, there's a chore I thought I was done with that's popped back up again. Um, so to speak. There's also the possibility that some of the sucked-in-bed guys, when deprived of the ability to go straight to the P-in-V, may have diverted their drives into more creative activities that were to their partners' liking, and the magic pill and resumption of P-in-V means back to less satisfying times for the ladies. (Speculation about that in the media, too. I don't make this shit up.)

Now, I am somewhat torn. I think I have made clear in this blog, and in conversation with those of you who are my close personal friends, that I think that if you are in a relationship, there is some duty to provide sexual gratification to your partner, and vice versa, whether or not you are particularly into it. But "duty" isn't the right attitude to take to the duty. My hard-won personal philosophy is this: you can't go wrong by remembering this is the person you love and are bonded to and that you should want them to have fun and feel pleasure, and that if you are the one providing that fun and pleasure for them, even better. It should make you happy to make them feel good. So, no lying back and thinking of England, or grudgingly performing cunnilingus with the attitude of "are we done yet?" If your partner is really randy and you are really not, just go along with the attitude what can I do that's gonna give them some fun? and I can almost guarantee you, by the time you're done, you'll be having fun too.

In fact, I will guarantee it. If you try it and it doesn't work for you, I'll refund what you paid to read this blog entry. If people could wrap their brains around this concept, there'd be a lot fewer divorces and a lot less infidelity in this country. (Um, not that the Larry Kings of the world wouldn't still cheat 'cause, c'mon now, her fucking sister?) As I've also said before, I was into my 30s before I grasped this concept, so I won't claim to have never been selfish myself. In fact--as I've discussed with some of you all lately--the only time in my life that I was ever completely uninterested in sex for a prolonged period of time was when I was pregnant and for the first few months after I gave birth. So, basically, I expected my husband to go without for a solid year because I didn't feel like doing it. I can look back now and feel really regretful about that. If I didn't want the P-in-V, I should have at least been sucking a lot of cock, is what I'm saying. Now, S and I had a lot of other problems in the relationship, so I don't think my being more sexually available during that year would have necessarily *saved* our marriage, BUT IT WOULDN'T HAVE HURT. Ahem.

But okay, even taking my stance into consideration, I gotta tell you: I do feel bad for these 75 year old women whose husbands go to the MD and demand (or just accept what's handed out like candy!) the Viagra. If you didn't enjoy sex when you were 25 and you were both a lot more spry, to say the least, you ain't gonna enjoy it fifty years later. Your thinning vaginal walls and arthritic hips aren't going to add anything to the proceedings, but medical science isn't quite as concerned about at least one of those things as they are with the apparent god-given right of everyone with a penis to have an erection at will.

But that brings me back to another conversation I've had recently. I also think that if, in a relationship, you really are not willing to satisfy your partner's sexual needs, the only fair and good and right thing to do is to freely allow them to get it elsewhere. I think it's preferable, intimacy-wise, if you make the effort and don't totally disengage sexually, but if you do, then open up the relationship. Maybe all those 75 year old women whose husbands take the Viagra scripts should say, "You have my permission to get it wherever you can, darling." Though, that's probably the kind of event that leads to really old men offering me a ride in their cars when I'm just walking home from the 7-11. Sigh.

The whole thing is a big can of worms. But as long as the pharmaceutical industry is making bucks, who the hell cares, right?

xoxo