Why do i think about sex so much
How to Think More About Sex by Alain de BottonIve heard about Alain de Bottons book How To Think More About Sex from so many people, I decided I had to read it. Their reviews were excellent -- Its like hearing David Attenborough narrate various sexual situations and philosophize about them at the same time! one of them said. I enjoy sex. I dig philosophy. I am a huge fan of nature documentaries, especially those narrated or presented by the aforementioned British broadcaster -- so how could I possibly resist?
I picked up the little book. Indeed, de Botton is such a charmer, I refused to put the book down, and when company arrived shortly after, I took to reading out loud rather than stopping to make polite conversation. And then I got to page 15.
This section, like all the others, is relatively short. Unlike the others, which up until this point are heavier on amusing human experience than theory, this one seeks to make sense of our inherent sense of alienation. In his explanation, de Botton takes us on a journey back through time to our childhoods. The trip is a little Freudian, but I waved my discomfort away. He wasnt saying anything outright Freudian, after all. He was just saying we humans have gone from being adored for no seemingly good reason to having to prove ourselves through our achievements. Its not like he was suggesting our sexual destinies had any relation to our parents, right?
I pressed on, heartened by de Bottons assurances that fetishes are nowhere near as abnormal as theyre made out to be. And then, it happened. My worst fears were realized: The precise origins of our enthusiasms may be obscure, but they can almost always be traced back to some meaningful aspect of our childhood: we will be drawn to specific things either because they recall appealing qualities of a beloved parental figure or else, conversely, because they somehow cancel out, or otherwise help us escape, a memory of an early humiliation or terror (p. 30).
Freuds name makes an appearance in the next paragraph and the paragraphs following relate the story of a man who becomes excited when he discovers his date is wearing flats (by Marni, a label de Botton likes enough to mention more than he does Freud in this book). The man likes the flats because his mother was a promiscuous actress who always wore very high heels. Although the man is not aware of it, his psychological history is the omnipresent filter through which he looks at shoes, and by extension at the women wearing them (p. 31), de Botton writes.
The woman, for her part, is jazzed that her date is wearing an old-fashioned watch because it reminds her of her father (Jung incoming!). The sight of it makes her nipples harden, as she subconsciously recalls her doctor father. She wont take her eyes off that watch as she and her date have sex. Later, she squeezes his arm between her legs, just to feel the glass against her thighs.
Shortly thereafter, there is a bizarre justification of fetishes via Platos Ladder of Love (p.33). Its not that sexual desire is a natural drive that makes itself manifest in a variety of ways, its that fetishes are the first step up a ladder that will lead us to transcendence. Instead of desiring sex like the base little creatures we are, the fetish will send us on a journey, the climax of which involves cloistering ourselves in an ivory tower. Hurrah! Problem solved. Thanks, dude!
If thats not judgy enough for the casual reader, note the very next page. Shortly after de Botton assures the reader that orgasm really is the supreme moment (ugh), the only time were not all alone in this world, he says that analyzing what we consider sexy is the only way we will understand that eroticism is the feeling of excitement we experience at finding another human being who shares our values and our sense of the meaning of existence.
Anyone who has experienced chemistry with another person knows that this attraction often has nothing to do with having encountered someone who shares our values or sense of the meaning of existence, whatever that is. But apparently those people dont exist. No, we take that back, they do exist, it says so right on the next page -- theyre just doing it wrong (p. 34). Per de Botton:
There are of course ways to have an orgasm that have very little to do with finding common purpose with another person, but these must be thought of as a greater or lesser betrayal of what sex should really be about.
In short: masturbation is not an activity that is natural and healthy or even a decent way to get to learn what we find pleasurable. Neither is it acceptable that we might have sex with people with whom we have no common purpose. After all, if were to take to heart the previous paragraph about the importance of sharing values, then what kind of people are we if we commune with individuals who dont share these values and therefore our purpose?
The next sections jump into evolutionary-biological interpretation, which we took to mean science, and which gave us the distinct impression that the authors research of sex stopped at the work of William H. Masters and Virginia E. Johnson instead of starting there. Thats not surprising, though. To accept studies that suggest that what we find attractive may change (as frequently as the place that a woman finds herself in her menstrual cycle, for instance) or that it may be related to our immune systems, would compromise the theory that our parents define our sexuality, which is central to this work.
So instead of giving us information, de Botton assures us that science has no compelling answer as to why our tastes are so varied. Lacking that and in order to help us better understand why we prefer some people over others, he brings us a 1907 essay by the German art historian Wilhem Worringer titled Abstraction and Empathy (because who is an expert on sex if not an art historian?). Worringer argued that we all grow up with something missing inside us (p. 50), de Botton summarizes. Our parents and our environment fail us in distinctive ways, and our characters hence take shape with certain areas of vulnerability and imbalance in them. And crucially, these deficits and flaws determine what is going to appeal to us and repel us in art.
Art, which possesses a particular psychological and moral atmosphere speaks to our psychological histories, and as a result, we like the pieces that compensate for what is missing in our lives. Essentially, if you like vivid art, you are a desiccated and sterile soul. Surely you suspected. And God help me, being ever so fond of the hyper-structured Composition A by Piet Mondrian: clearly Im a sociopath (and surely in love with my father to boot!).
Joking aside, de Botton goes on to extend Worringers ideas to human attraction, posing that we are attracted to other people because we see in them what we are missing in ourselves. Not content to reinforce the unhealthy (if slightly romantic) notion that we need another human to be complete, de Botton pens an ode to the virgin/whore construct by comparing Scarlett Johanssons features to those of Natalie Portman, giving each a completely subjective meaning (her cheekbones indicate a capacity for self-involvement, he says of Johansson). We end up favoring Natalie, who is objectively no more beautiful than Scarlett, because her eyes reflect just the sort of calm that we long for and never got enough of from our hypochondriacal mother (p. 56).
That unfortunate dichotomy comes up again later when de Botton accuses women of also engaging in it (via the nice guy/bastard complex p. 71) as part of a discussion on why it is difficult to keep passion alive in long-term relationships. Unfortunately, before we can really understand what he is trying to say, were back to Freud, this time to visit On the Universal Tendency to Debasement in the Sphere of Love. Those who are familiar with it may take a moment to roll their eyes here.
For those of you who arent, let me summarize the logic of this chapter: we were denied sex with the people who taught us what love is (our parents); as a result, we seek our parents in lovers; we become weirded out by (and thus unable to have sex with) our long-term partners as they begin to age and we recognize our parents in them; and this is why some are so likely to run off with a younger lover. This is not a pathetic search for lost youth! This is poignant! The parental ghosts have subsumed their partners and, as a result, rendered impossible any sexual intimacy with them (p. 74).
There are a lot of utterly fascinating explanations like these in this book. The next whopper suggests that impotence is a problem of civility (p. 84). If men didnt care so much about their partners desire, pleasure, comfort and well-being, psychological impotence would not exist. The author points at caveman times as an ideal. He writes:
The early humanoids ... may have had a hard time finding food, evading dangerous animals, sewing underpants and communicating with faraway relatives, but having sex was a simple matter for them, because the one question that almost certainly never ran through the minds of male hunters as they lifted themselves up on their hirsute limbs was whether their partners were going to be in the mood that night -- or whether they might instead feel revolted or bored by the sight of a penis, or just keen to spend a quiet evening tending to the fire.
[...] The greater our power of imagination, the more acute and amplified will be our apprehension about giving offense -- to the extent that when sex is a legitimate possibility, our doubts may prove impossible to cast aside, with fatal consequence, if we are male, for our ability to maintain an erection. It is civilization itself, with its faith in human rights, its respect for kindness and its moral sophistication, which has unwittingly generated an inestimable increase in occasions of sexual fiasco.
I have heard similar, if less eloquent, arguments about this before. Usually they just go FEMINISM RUINED EVERYTHING. Sorry but Im not the least bit sorry feminism happened.
And while there are conversations that should be had about the way men are oppressed via modern and vestigial constructs of masculinity, Im really not crazy about the idea that -- instead of continuing to explore and attempt to rectify impotence scientifically -- we ought to award impotent men, as de Botton suggests. We wouldnt award impotent men for their depth of spirit any more than we would award women suffering from vaginismus. Demystify and destigmatize? Yes. Award? Come on, really? (And isnt it funny how the award idea starts to break down when you swap impotence with vaginismus?)
This book really should have been titled Its Not Our Fault. From the first chapter, readers are told our childhoods and parents are at fault or somehow responsible for our desires. Our choices -- in art and sex and beyond -- are shaped by the subsequent deficiencies within our psychological histories. Sex is kind of a base thing, but it might lead to something good, and anyway, its not our fault, so we should have it. And since were having it, we might as well get married. And since were married and sex is getting boring, we might get a third person and watch them have sex with our spouses, or take pictures of our spouses and put them online to see how the world reacts to their bodies, or have sex in hotel rooms instead of at home to try to spice things up. Those are de Bottons suggestions, half-assedly jotted down, like a slight nod to the fact that some other configuration of sex might exist. His real suggestion, hidden under all those seemingly progressive ideas, is actually quite conventional: weekly psychotherapy.
We have no self-awareness, de Botton assures us. We cant be expected to understand ourselves -- whats the point of talking to our partners? Even if we did take matters into our own hands, we would fail! Enter the psychotherapist, who would ask the couple to arrive every week with a list of complaints to go over and make vague threats about what happens to a long-term union when you dont have sex at least once a week. This therapist would belong to a new kind of priesthood, de Botton muses.
The book could have ended there, but no book about sex is complete without a chapter on pornography. The way this one reads, youd think pornography was a fairly recent thing in the history of humanity. Pornography, de Botton tells us, is to be blamed for the fact that sales of serious literature are down. He mocks people who call it unthreatening. Clearly, they have only ever peeked inside an old issue of Playboy or run across crap porn on the adult channel while staying at a hotel. But porn is actually very dangerous, he says -- nevermind that modern science suggests otherwise! Science has no real place in the imagination of Alain de Botton. In fact, according to de Botton, porn is bad for science, since it takes up the time researchers could be using to find the cure for cancer (p. 96). Good thing theres free porn online or imagine how many grants would go up in smoke, folks!
Masturbation and fantasy are in complete opposition to virtue, he argues, and porn is the terrible catalyst. No, not just porn -- the entire internet is at fault (p. 102)! The answer, de Botton suggests, is a bit of censorship, if only for the sake of our own well-being and our capacity to flourish.
If you dont see how helpful a bit of censorship might be, it is because you have never been obliterated by the full force of sex (help! Weve fallen into a Philip Roth novel and we cant get out!). Religions get this, de Botton reminds us. Only religions see [sex] as something potentially dangerous and needing to be guarded against. (p 103) There is a paragraph somewhere in there that seems to obliquely suggest that hijabs and burkas make sense by pointing out the excitement aroused in men by half-naked teenage girls sauntering provocatively down the beachfront. Indeed, a degree of repression is necessary both for the mental health of our species and for the adequate functioning of a decently ordered and loving society.
Pause here for a moment and consider this carefully: earlier in the book, de Botton offered an example of a woman who pretended that she wanted a relationship just so she could have sex. That was a nice example because it showed that he was aware that women, too, have desires and women, too, want sex. Unfortunately, his considerations for women began and ended in the same place. While he suggests an award for impotence to applaud mens depth of spirit, he completely ignores any sexual issues women face. You caught that, right? Now look at the above paragraph again. See how the discussion of censorship targets women specifically? There is no mention anywhere about mens audacity to cavort on the beach. It is women who must be covered. Its the female body that must be censored.
In short: whatever sexual issues women face, theyre not worthy of mention or award. Also, since women are obviously only here to be desired, their freedoms must be curtailed in favor of public good. You know, since men are beasts incapable of self-control and if you do try to civilize them, you will only succeed in sentencing them to impotence.
Ready to throw the book out the window? Dont! The next part is the best. Trust me! In a subsection of the porn chapter, de Botton spends some time considering what the ideal kind of pornography would be. This kind of porn wouldnt force us to make such a stark choice between sex and virtue -- [it would be] a pornography in which sexual desire would be invited to support, rather than permitted to undermine, our higher values.
Now, never mind that this kind of pornography already exists, that there are a lot of independent directors who already focus on capturing real pleasure, sharing true intimacy between real partners, exploring sex to foster a couples bond during pregnancy, etc. Its highly likely that even if de Botton knew about them, the choices wouldnt satisfy him. Why? Because his notion of the ideal porn is not dissimilar to Christian art (p. 107). The advantage of having sexual fantasies while looking at Botticellis Madonna rather than at a stereotypical product of the modern industry is that the former doesnt compel us to make an uncomfortable choice between our sexuality and other qualities we aspire towards.
Sex is the enemy of goodness. It corrupts. It distracts. It is a problem. That, essentially, is the message of Alain de Bottons How To Think More About Sex. But wait, theres more! When people step out on their partners, the cheater shouldnt be abused. Its the spurned lover who aught to apologize (p. 117): Certainly adultery grabs the headlines, but there are lesser, though no less powerful, ways to betray a partner, including not talking to him or her enough, seeming distracted, being ill-tempered or simply failing to evolve or enchant. He makes a valid point that we dont celebrate fidelity enough, that we take it for granted and we shouldnt, but the point is lost in the avalanche of rubbish.
There are other good points to be sure, three or four, but the need to evade responsibility underlying the entire work is toxic: Its not that I like this because Im weird, its that my psychological history has a deficit; I dont have a problem getting hard, its just that having to care about your feelings makes me impotent; I am not banging our daughters friend because there is anything wrong with me, my mothers specter has subsumed you and now I cant fuck you and I need someone young so I dont think about her when I have sex; I am cheating not because I have disregarded a relationship boundary but because you are boring and anyway fidelity is not the norm, etc.
Final word? Skip it. Everything you need to know about, youve read right here.
Originally published on Sex and the 405.
Do Men Think About Sex More Than Women? Science Explains!
Is it normal to think about sex as often as I do?
Almost two years ago I nearly gave my virginity away to the first guy who asked for no other reason than loneliness. Most recently I noted that I tend to fail more in this area during certain times of the month. Could part of my problem be hormonal? There are times that I feel like my prayers go unanswered because my behavior is nearly habitual. There is supposed to be no limit to the number of times one can repent of the same sin, but …. I also have mixed feelings about marriage because of my family history.
Photo via Flickr user Stuart Conner. Tim Lee's sex addiction clinic is inside one of those nondescript beige buildings right outside Penn Station.
neu mot ngay khong co em
Subscribe to the VICE newsletter.
Do men think about sex every seven seconds? Probably not. But rather than wonder about whether this is true, Tom Stafford asks how on earth you can actually prove it or not. We've all been told that men think about you-know-what far too often — every seven seconds, by some accounts. Most of us have entertained this idea for long enough to be sceptical.
Read more from him on his website, GoodInBed. Gentlemen, lest you were alarmed you might be abnormal for not thinking about sex once every 7 seconds more than 8, times a day , a new study in the Journal of Sex Research arrives to reassure you. Men, on average, think about sex far less than that much-hyped interval. Terri Fisher and her colleagues at Ohio State University, who recently tracked a group of undergraduates females and males between the ages of 18 and 25 as they used a golf-counter to tally their daily thoughts about eating, sleep or sex over the course of a week. The results: Far from thinking about sex every 7 seconds, men thought about it about 19 times a day on average, whereas women thought about sex 10 times a day on average. When the latter does think about sex, it may be in a more obsessive way.