missionary (a poundcake update)
don't you hate it when you have a bad date, but the other person didn't? during the date, i very quickly realized that poundcake girl and i are not compatible. however, she left a message yesterday to set up a second date. no no no no no. two years ago, or even four months ago, i would have taken on the roll of teacher and mentor for this young (20!) sex-negative/naive child. but it is not my job to help others learn about their sexuality. or rather, it is my job. so i'd like to find something more symbiotic in a personal relationship.
so what was so bad about it?
nothing in particular went horribly arye (how the hell do you spell that word?!? sounds like "uh-rye", anyway, you get my drift). we are simply not sexually compatible on a philosophical level.
she wants to be pursued, captured, adored, beloved, unattainable, and ravished. she doesn't want sex. she wants someone else to want sex with her. but she doesn't surrender. while she was busy dwelling on the vampyric parallels of sexual pursuit, i felt i eating at dojo's with an ayn rand character (you know, the chic from "the fountainhead").
part of her need to be the beloved and not the lover translates to her distaste of discussion of sex (although obviously not on this date, because it was really all we talked about). "if my lover so much as asks if i am ready, that ruins it for me." the girl is against verbal communication! ack! she connotes the type that wouldn't use condoms because
1) buying them would imply planning and desire on her behalf
2) asking someone to put on a condom would ruin the mood
3) its "unnatural"
*sidenote: on dates with guys over the last year or two, i have noticed myself switching into "sex worker mode" when i'm not attracted to the guy. leading the conversation and making sure he's having a good time and being polite and social and a good hostess but having zero personal investment in the date. on this particular date, i switched into "teacher mode". i was continually validating her views and offering other ideas and concepts to chew on, not forcing anything but providing new information. it was exhausting!*
sex is an unnatural act. this is the title of an interesting book, but a great concept all on its own. we are brought up in a conflicting sexual culture (duh!). on the one hand, consumerism is telling us we must by this that and the other in order to be satisfied sexual beings. on the other hand, we are lead to believe that sex "just happens naturally" and is a basic animal act that doesn't require effort or information. sex without information is bad sex. this doesn't have to be information learned in school or from textbooks or cosmo or the spice channel. this can be knowledge of your body and how your body feels and responds as well as knowledge of your partner's body. now, you can just figure it out by trial and error, but a independent research and communication greatly increases your chances of having an enjoyable sexual experience.
which brings me to a point i have been mulling over lately, especially in light of the sex toy debate. should the purpose of sexuality education be to prevent sex or prevent bad sex? or maybe prevention shouldn't be the goal at all.
so you're thinking, "ah, jane's just bitter cause she didn't get any. sounds like it probably wasn't even a date." well, i don't know if it was a date or not. because she doesn't kiss on the first date! (which is cute, but not really) in conclusion, there will not be a second date.
i am now going home to re-read judith levine's harmful to minors (everybody go out and buy it, or order it from half.com, or check it out from nadia). sweet dreams.