Sex: Is That All There Is?

Denver Post writer Doug Brown's JUST DO IT: How One Couple Screwed Their Life and Love Back Together, about the 101 days the author and his wife committed to have sex every day, no matter what, and exploring how anyone can strengthen a relationship, and fall back in love with their spouse even after a decade together, to Allison McCabe at Crown, in a good deal, by Daniel Lazar at Writers House. (From me - This has also recently been optioned for film to 20th Century Fox by Kassie Evashevski, also known as James Frey's agent).

Charla Muller with Betsy Thorpe's 365 NIGHTS: A Memoir of Intimacy, about a wife who gives her husband the 40th birthday gift of 365 days of sex, in an effort to rejuvenate their marriage after 10 years together and the exhaustion of two young children; their efforts to plan and execute (and try to enjoy) sex every day for an entire year reveal unexpected results about the nature of intimacy, to Andie Avila at Berkley, for publication in July 2008, by Sharon Bowers at The Miller Agency (World).

(both listings from Publishers Marketplace, Amazon link mine)

It seems that there are many books coming out, and there are always plenty of articles and cultural prompts, telling us that the more sex we have, the better. Granted, the above examples are about couples, but whether we're talking about individuals or couples, the assumption that sex is always better than no sex needs examining, because I think it's a dangerous one.

Assuming that sex is always best means that we prioritize it above all else, and don't leave room for both other ways of creating intimacy, or for the space some of us may need in our lives with out. Joan Sewell covers some of this territory in her memoir I'd Rather Eat Chocolate, about living with a low libido, and while these "just do it" type books appear, we're also seeing things like two forthcoming memoirs, Kerry Cohen's Loose Girl: A Memoir of Promiscuity and Rachel Resnick's Love Junkie. And it's not just women who get caught in this web of pursuing sex at all costs. I sense that a lot of men feel pressure to live up to certain mythologies about their manlihood, about what success means in the sack (usually in terms of a numbers game).

Call me crazy, and I will fully admit here that my longest, and best, relationship only lasted just under a year, and I've never lived with someone, but there are plenty of days, like today, when the idea of doing anything sexual makes me want to vomit, and I'm not really exaggerating. This is me in the past few days I've been home: jet-lagged, with a throbbing headache that doesn't quite seem to go away, snot practically pouring out of me, alternately freezing cold and grossly sweaty, and I have my period. It's an effort to even get up, let alone make myself take aspirin or go outside. I'm certainly not at death's door, and have been sicker, but my whole body seems to be begging me to rest. I can write and have been going to work and I can even talk on the phone, but the idea of doing anything more than simply resting my head against someone else's body is just not appealing. And I'm sure we all have days when we are not in the mood for various reasons. I'm not saying that there aren't times when we can get over that and make an effort just because - whether for our partner's sake, or because we know that once we get over our reluctance, we will enjoy sex. But again, pursuing sex just to "do it," whether in the name of a book deal or to feel like a stud or feel "sexy" isn't always the best option.

Sometimes, when we choose sex over no sex, especially if we're only doing it because we've succumbed to this idea that "more is better," we may lose something in the bargain. There's often a tradeoff, and it's not always easy to know which door to open. For me, I find that often I've chosen to be sexual with people because I didn't know how to be close to them otherwise, and I wanted the whole package, but all too often, I got half the package, at best. Because I don't think sex instantly breeds intimacy, and in fact, can sometimes do the opposite. It can bring you to the brink of that, break down certain barriers we hold onto in our daily lives, but not all of them. It's not always easy to predict beforehand, either, and there've been plenty of times I've chosen sex and am glad I did, and other times, not so much.

So when Newsweek touts the health benefits of weekly sex, I can't help thinking it rings a false note. Not because it focuses only on sex as heterosxual intercourse, but simply because none of the reasons listed are reasons why anyone I've ever known actually has sex. It's laughable that if we're otherwise not really feeling it, we'll rouse ourselves simply because it would make our doctor happy. It's disingenuous, in that way.

Another problem with this imperative to have sex is that for many of us, aside from having sex with ourselves, it's simply not an option, or at least, not as simple as rolling over and pouncing on the person next to you. I know when I read these types of things and I'm single, which is pretty much all of the time, it makes me feel like there is something wrong with me for not being in a relationship. These types of articles, like Newsweek's, assume that weekly sex is something we can conjure out of thin air and instantly reap its rewards, when that simply is not so.

I fear that now perhaps I've made sex sound like it's all doom and gloom, and that's not my intention. I am not against casual sex, nor am I denying that daily sex might be useful to some people. But I doubt that we need someone else telling us to "have sex tonight." The meaning of sex is so individual, so complex, so vast, that it simply cannot be summed up so easily, and we do sexuality, and ourselves, a disservice by trying to do so. It's because I do believe in the transformative power of sex that I don't think it can be so easily scheduled and slotted in, held up as a magical cure-all for whatever ails you, inside or out.

If researchers last year found 237 reasons why people have sex (you can read the entire study as a PDF via researcher Cindy Meston, Ph.D.'s website), it's got to be a lot more complex than that. It goes infinitely deeper than getting off (though it doesn't necessarily have to) and, for me, is so often as much about the mind and the heart as the body.

The number one reason given by men and women in that study for having sex with someone was attraction to the person, which I think is a mighty fine reason for sleeping with them. I just don't think that it ends there at all. Sex isn't so much a do it or don't outcome as about the process. I know I've certainly been with people I was wildly attracted to and once we got into bed, a lot of that attraction fizzled. Alternately, and what's happened more in the last year or so, is that I've had some really amazing sex with people, the kind that makes me wonder what I'd been doing up until that point. And yet, afterwards, there's something off about it, because it ends right there, at the bedroom door. It is not about building something greater to draw from during sex, and using that incredible sex to empower a relationship. It's not about getting to know someone better than you know yourself. It's not what I would call "casual" either, but for me, it's not a perfect fit.

A year ago, I got fired from the best writing job of my life, and in that time I feel I've hardly lived up to that legacy. I had thought I would continue with that kind of writing, but without deadlines and paychecks, it's a little tough to force yourself to do that. I did write on this blog something I think is worth repeating:

Sex, I've learned, is saying yes, and saying no. It's getting turned on by the sound of someone's voice when they have no idea their tone is making you touch yourself. It's getting slapped across the face and being so completely aroused you want more and more and more. It's watching a madly-in-love couple screw themselves silly right next to you and looking on proudly. It's watching your lover sleep and debating whether to wake them with kisses or just admire their resting form. It's lusting after bulging breasts even when all you want to do is bury your head between them. It's ordering someone to jerk off in front of you and having them instantly leap into action. It's making out on the street and getting catcalled. It's figuring out just how far you'll have to go to get that person into your bed. It's wrestling with the fantasies running amok in your head, the ones that are scorchingly hot precisely because they don't make sense. It's crushing out in a way that makes your whole body come alive. It's dirty emails that promise so much more than they can deliver, except then they do.

But it's also the downside - it's being told not to talk in bed, it's being told not to write about the things happening in your life, it's discovering your lover's been cheating on you through the most rudimentary uses of technology, it's people not wanting to use condoms, it's "dates" that may or may not be, it's lovers who don't reciprocate, it's the growing threats to reproductive rights, it's getting carried away and trying to bring yourself back to the brink.

I have more to say on the topic, especially about an amazing quote I saw in an exhibit the other day, one that speaks far more to quality over quantity when it comes to sex. I certainly don't pretend to have all the answers. Sometimes I opt to live in the moment, and sometimes I try to step back and look at the bigger picture, to make like my friend Baser Instincts and vow to "hold off longer." She writes:

I know this sounds counterproductive because the idea is to have more sex but I’m focusing on quality not quantity. Sex is better when you really want a particular person and it is less so when you just cave in to biology and hop on the first available thing around.

It's not always clearcut, and I often waver between fulfilling one desire at the expense of another, with being attracted to people who are all wrong for me in some ways and all right for me in others. But I do know that simply holding up sex, sex, and more sex is not a universal answer, and that sometimes it's the very opposite we need.