So I was talking to D the other day, and she mentioned that she had finished Ryan and Jetha's Sex at Dawn. Then right away she added, "It left me feeling a little bit insecure, actually. I kept wondering, 'Are you trying to send me a message here?' "
A message? Huh? Oh, right. That.
I think the weakest part of the book is the last chapter, not because it says anything that appears demonstrably untrue but becomes it comes across as a half-truth and a piece of special pleading. The last chapter is all about men's need for sexual variety in order to sustain sexual interest. They give a biological explanation, and reference some remote society where wives encourage their husbands to take mistresses and see the mistresses as enhancing the stability of the family. The argument is probably as sound as any of the other arguments in the book, and I doubt most people would argue. So men want to get a little on the side? What else is new?
But I understand D's momentary insecurity. No doubt she was wondering, "Did Hosea give me this book as a subtle way of telling me he want to fuck other women too? He knows I'd get upset ... is he trying to let the book argue the point for him?"
Of course, that's not why I wanted her to read the book. I just thought she'd find it fascinating, because she is so interested in sex. But I think the responsibility for the misunderstanding rests squarely with that last chapter itself. Because the chapter totally ignores the question, "What is so special about men in this respect? Wouldn't women like a little extracurricular action too?"
And of course the whole rest of the book answers that second question with a resounding "yes I said yes I will Yes!" Of course women too thrive on sexual variety! Haven't the authors given abundant arguments and examples to explain exactly this point, in all the rest of the book? Haven't they gone well out of their way to argue that female sexuality evolved in a context where each sexual encounter might involve half a dozen men? If this doesn't imply that women -- just as much as men -- should be expected to crave variety in bed, then I must be missing something.
Somehow I think if the last chapter had been more even-handed, urging both husbands and wives to understand and respect the unmet sexual cravings of each other, then D would have felt less insecure. Or alternatively -- taking the book completely seriously -- she could have said, "You can have a second mistress if you like, so long as I can have another man in bed with me at the very same time you are there, so that the two of you can trade off." I don't expect her to say that, however ....
The Nibelung’s Ring: The Valkyrie 1
22 hours ago
1 comment:
I do believe that mistresses you fall in love with (See: D.) are more likely to be insecure about other mistresses, even in theory. Because, of course, they know it's possible for you to fall in love with a mistress.
Never mind the completely different context.
Post a Comment