One of my favorite games with a group of people I don't know too well is ten fingers. I'm sure you've all played it: you go around the group saying things you haven't done, and if someone else has, they put down a finger. As you might expect, whenever I play this game, sex is a major theme. There are a lot of "I Nevers" like Never had sex in an elevator (in this case, my finger stays up), Never had sex more than twice in a day (finger goes down), and Never had sex on Air Force One (obviously, finger goes down). When you happen to be playing with all straight people, these questions are often considered easy to answer, because we assume sex means PIV*. However, the first time you play this game with bisexual or gay folks, you realize you need to change your definition a bit. But what do we change it to? Do we just open it up to including oral sex? How about anal?
How about.....THIS???
One important question is whether we even need a universal definition. Admittedly, I'm not 100% convinced we do. To avoid confusion in my own life, I always just explain things fully. If I want to convey that I went down on a girl, I'll probably say that I went down on her, rather than leaving it up to saying that we had sex. However, not everyone cares to be so explicit. And there are plenty of times when any real explanation isn't called for at all.
Something I've noticed, though, is that it seems like an official definition only seems to be important when we're trying to be judgmental about sex. The first thing that comes to mind is the Numbers Question. If someone has had PIV sex with 3 people, but had oral sex with 20, how do they respond to the question "How many people have you had sex with?" Are they being dishonest if they give either of those answers? Should they feel required to say both, and explain them? These things are obviously situational, but it's clear how much of a difference a common definition can make.
Even more important than the Numbers Question is the worry of virginity. If someone is worried about not having sex until it's with someone they love or until they're married, it's good to know exactly what that means. For some people, I know that's included oral sex. I know some women, however, who understood sex to mean PIV so clearly that they started out having anal sex to maintain their virginity. This, to me, is ludicrous. But this goes to show that I have a different definition of what sex is than some people.
I'm not planning on proffering a universal definition here. I am, however, interested in this being a thing that people talk about occasionally. I personally think that using PIV sex as the only way to define sex is something people use as a scapegoat in both situations. Now, let me say that intercourse is definitely different in some ways than other kinds of sex, as all kinds are different, and for many people it's more important, intimate, or what ever else. However, to put it on a completely different plane doesn't always seem fair to me. If you're not sleeping with someone just to keep your numbers down, what's the reason for keeping your number low? What do you gain by abstaining from one particular sexual act in order to say you've only had sex with a certain number of people? If you're deciding to remain a virgin for some reason, what are the reasons you're doing it? Is everything other than PIV really okay, and just PIV isn't?
Not only does treating PIV as the only "real" kind of sex cheapen same-sex sex, but it also starts to dictate a certain way hetero sex has to go to actually "count".
No, damnit. Not that Count. While he's there, though, this always makes me giggle.
This brings me to my next topic: the coital imperative. It's supposedly common knowledge that all men hate wearing condoms, but I read an article a while back about why condoms are no fun for women, either. It's something I had never really thought about. Other than the obvious fact that skin is a more pleasurable feeling than rubber to most people, I hadn't ever really thought about the problem with condoms for women. A major problem with them, however, is that they can set up a narrative for how sex goes. There can be foreplay, but at some point, the condom goes on. Then it's penis in vagina until the man comes, then it's over. There are certainly exceptions to this, but it's no doubt a familiar scenario. Oral sex performed on a male doesn't feel as good with a condom on, nor does it taste very good.** Once you've had sex, oral sex on the woman will taste like rubber too, and is therefore less likely to happen as well. On top of this, proper condom usage dictates that men take off their condoms while they're still erect , so there can't be the snuggling directly after coitus that can be an essential part for a lot of people.
Awww yeah. Sexy, sexy, post-coital snuggling.
You realize, of course, I'm not trying to talk you out of wearing condoms. They're a good (though less reliable than many) form of birth control, and one of the only options available for casual partners. It brings up an interesting point, though, which is that this seems to be the narrative of sex regardless of the condom usage. The biggest problem with the condom is that it helps along and justifies this narrative. Even with condoms, people should still see if they can break out of this mold.*** At Planned Parenthood (find the one nearest you here), their own condoms are free, and they sell name brands at 10 for $1. It's not like you can't toss one off after having sex for a while, make out, then go back to sex later. That's just one example, though! Experiment!
Possibly the larger problem is that this is just simply what people think of as sex: penis in vagina until the guy orgasms. I know even I'm guilty of this. I've had sex where only I come, where only the girl comes, where we both come, and where neither of us come. This is all obviously sex, but unless I catch myself, I sometimes think of only the times where I came as actually "counting". Now, for me this only comes up in completely frivolous, how-many-times-did-we-do-it-yesterday sort of ways, but the fact that my mind still jumps to thinking this way is troubling.
What do you all think? How do you define sex? Do you find yourself getting stuck in the rut of the coital imperative?
*Yes, Penis-In-Vagina. And yes, this term does get used in the literature. I'm not making it up to seem cool. But it's hard to complain about sexy acronyms.
**Unless you dig the taste of rubber, in which case, well, go you.
***That is, if either party is unhappy with the arrangement. I'm not trying to tell you how to have sex if you're happy, but variety rarely hurts.
images via collegecandy.com, thrublurryeyes.com, almightyray.com
Here's an interesting contrast for you -- for a sexual coupling to feel satisfying to me, all I require is for my partner to be happy. This doesn't necessarily have to include orgasm, but it usually does. Now, I'm a girl, so maybe that doesn't mean anything, but I've talked to plenty of men who feel that an encounter was worth it if their partner leaves feeling satisfied.
ReplyDeleteSo, maybe you're just selfish. ;)
We're talking about two very different things here. I'm not talking at all about levels of satisfaction. I can have a great time making out with a girl, leaving her satisfied, and would therefore call it "worth it", but would still by no means call it sex.
ReplyDeleteThat said, my point about thinking sex only counts if I come is that it IS selfish and self-centered. That's the whole reason I'm talking about it.