Wendy Shalit ’97 is blogging at the Modesty Zone. Wendy wrote on Friday:

We’ve talked about how modesty is prudery’s true opposite, right? Reserving sexuality for the sake of protecting its power, and so forth and so on. Well, lately I’ve been thinking that maybe promiscuity could really be related to asexuality–since without integrating the emotions, sex tends to be “no big deal.” We’ve certainly all seen examples of exhibitionism being perfectly consistent with a low sex drive.

Compare this to Liv Osthus’s ’96 comments from last Sunday.

After the initial meet-and-greet, we are asked what issues we’d like to discuss in therapy. My guy says innocently enough that he’d like to have more sex.

I almost blurt out that he should go find himself another chick, but instead I hear myself saying, “I love sex!” Or at least, I explain, I did love sex, once upon a time, before I was writing a book and fronting a band and stripping almost every night and paying a mortgage and managing a household and trying occasionally to sleep.

I would love nothing more than to have my libido back, I tell them, and I’d welcome their guidance. But if my guy really wants sex, maybe he should come back when I’m 45 and not trying to juggle three all-consuming careers, hoping desperately to get one of them off the ground before the plug gets pulled on my biological clock.

“And what if I don’t want to? It’s not like it’s that enjoyable. I understand I’m supposed to want sex for the sake of our relationship, but the truth is I just don’t. And having sex when you don’t want to isn’t like other things, like massaging someone’s feet or cooking someone dinner just out of love for them. It feels violating to have sex when you don’t want to. Why should I want to have sex anyway? I’d rather fit in an hour’s worth of guitar or maybe a long walk.”

There are no easy answers here. But, at EphBlog at least, we are pleased and proud to offer commentary from Ephs like already-author Shalit and soon-to-be-author Osthus. The value here is in the conversation, not the conclusion.

Print  •  Email