Casual Sex, Confusion or Romance?

In the days of yore, May Day used to be a pagan celebration of spring. The industrial revolution and its byproduct — socialism — converted the First of May into an International Workers’ Day, today celebrated all across Europe, almost like in the red cold times. As a young pioneer, during the 1970’s, I was genuinely enthusiastic about the popular festivities. However, both my proletarian parents made sacrifices to send their daughters to college. Our task was simple: to learn. Then, once in an elite college, hundreds of kilometers away from the shifts/factory model of my parents’ universe, the underpinnings of the workers’ “paradise” appeared to me in a different light. I wanted to be an intellectual and a feminist. I wanted to impart justice, to defeat corruption, to prove that “something” has to (and can) be done to correct the many obvious wrongs out there. At one point, my logic asked me, subtly, if people can change their mentalities, their perception about their peers, and at what cost. Pondering against this scale, the answer is NO — people, most of them, cannot or will not do a U-turn with their lives. Blame traditions, blame fears, blame complacency, blame ignorance? Blame them all if you wish, or blame none if you don’t. The empirical fact remains: minds are forged by habits, awareness is subject to the social ecosystem. Like the saying goes that old habits die hard, or once a patsy, always a patsy. Exceptions strengthen the rule, of course. Says the former feminist… But let me give you a few quotes from a yesterday reading of mine: “Why Is There a Hookup Culture?” by Dennis Prager at


It is well known that most college students engage at one time or another in what is known as a “hookup” — an emotionless, commitment-less sexual encounter. Yesterday, I interviewed Donna Freitas, author of “The End of Sex: How Hookup Culture is Leaving a Generation Unhappy, Sexually Unfulfilled, and Confused About Intimacy.”
In our dialogue, we agreed that her book subtitle was accurate, but we disagreed as to the cause. Freitas, who holds a Ph.D. in religious studies, blamed it on peer pressure, the sex-drenched social media of young people and the ubiquity of pornography. I blamed three other culprits: feminism, careerism and secularism.

I was in college and graduate school during the heyday of modern feminism. And the central message to women was clear as daylight: You are no different from men. Therefore, among other things, you can enjoy sex just like they do — just for the fun of it and with many partners. The notion that nearly every woman yearns for something deeper when she has sexual intercourse with a man was dismissed as patriarchal propaganda. The culture might tell her to restrict sex to a man who loves her and might even marry her, but the liberated woman knows better: Sex without any emotional ties or possibility of future commitment can be “empowering.”

During my college days, under the red shadow of the iron fence in the 1980’s, instead of the mentioned “hookup” culture from American colleges of today, our feminist focus was quite materialistic in regard to sexual relations. The line of thinking among gals was that, if “boys” are attracted to us, then why not take advantage? The best of it, that is! Marriages out of interest, career moves and social jumps, let not mention that marrying a guy from the WEST was equivalent to escaping out of the vast prison camp they called a country. Our generation of feminists wanted SOMETHING in exchange for sex. Honestly, this primeval trade between men and women commenced several thousand years before the Soviet occupation. What discouraged me when reading Mr. Prager’s article was that college girls of today just give their bodies for a beer, or for fun. This is appalling!

A woman, any woman, has her own value. There’s a price for entering her pants. Men, at least what I consider “men,” have a basic understanding about complimenting or flirting with a beauty, then about remunerating a stripper or a hooker, then about marrying and providing for a wife or a mistress. Women who just wished to become wives used to be the norm in any functional civilization. Those who didn’t have a problem, with themselves or with the rest of the world. The problem? The absence of Eros!

The ancient philosopher Plato developed an idealistic concept of eros which would prove to be very influential in modern times. In general, Plato did not consider physical attraction to be a necessary part of eros. “Platonic love” in this original sense can be attained by the intellectual purification of eros from carnal into ideal form. This process is examined in Plato’s dialogue the Symposium. Plato argues there that eros is initially felt for a person, but with contemplation it can become an appreciation for the beauty within that person, or even an appreciation for beauty itself in an ideal sense. As Plato expresses it, eros can help the soul to “remember” beauty in its pure form. It follows from this, for Plato, that eros can contribute to an understanding of truth.

Materialist feminists marrying out of interest, or pursuing a career with the aid of their charms, had their own version of eros, at least concerning their own beauty. From this point on, with a METHOD at hand, or in your mind, you learn how to measure the quality of men, considering who is worth indulging with. You learn to think! Right or wrong, cunning or kind, you are asserting some self-made form of “truth.” I’m not clever enough to see how this mindless “hookup” culture will help our fresh feminists out of college. All I can do is trust that the female instinct will somehow spare us from Idiocracy — now that gals “think” like boys, oh my, oh my…

Feminism taught — and professors on the New York Times op-ed page continue to write — that there are no significant natural differences between men and women. Therefore, it is not unique to male nature to want to have sex with many partners.

Hm, really? Let’s see what Carl Jung had to say.

Woman’s psychology is founded on the principle of Eros, the great binder and loosener, whereas from ancient times the ruling principle ascribed to man is Logos. The concept of Eros could be expressed in modern terms as psychic relatedness, and that of Logos as objective interest.

Carl Jung, Aspects of the Feminine, Princeton University Press, 1982, p. 65, ISBN 0-7100-9522-8.

Well, maybe I should blame the love for my man that mixed both logos and eros in my head. He influenced me in many ways, from thinking like him to posing like he wants to see me and therefore listen to me. But beside my personal life experience, one consideration remains: feminist teaching and NYT professors collide with Carl Jung.

Another feminist message to women was that just as a woman can have sex like a man, she can also find career as fulfilling as men do. […] Women should be as interested in a career as men are. Any hint of the notion that women want, more than anything else, to marry and make a family is sexist, demeaning, and untrue.

One result is that instead of trying to find a potential husband, young women are under feminist pressure to show that they couldn’t care less about forming an exclusive, let alone permanent, relationship with a man. And this provides another reason for her to engage in non-emotional, commitment-free sex.

This is a tough one. I know about many men who dedicated their lives to a career only to find themselves old and betrayed. Do you know who’s the greatest cheater out there? Your CAREER! An unforgiving, cold-blooded feeling killer. You don’t have to be Plato or Socrates to understand that you’ve got a life, not a career, to pursue happiness. This works for men as well as for women. And it further complicates when women begin their quest for ROMANCE. Because what can happiness be if there’s no romance? And what would sex fill if not your romantic eros? Is there such a thing as casual romance with strangers, with college dorm mates? Could you ever imagine group romance? How about gang romance?

No wonder that:

Feminist teaching about male-female sameness; feminist teaching that women will derive their greatest meaning from career, not from marriage and family; and the complete removal of religious values and teaching from the college campus are, indeed, “leaving a generation unhappy, sexually unfulfilled [certainly most of the women] and confused about intimacy.”

Indeed, CONFUSED is the term. As a woman, I take my dose of confusion on a regular basis, this is perfectly normal. Young or mature, single or married, maiden or mother, a woman has the right to be confused. Sadly, this is not an option for us. For me, hubby (as crazy as he proves to be) is the sense to my senses, his life is mine, mine is his and ours burn for Christ. We make sense together, regardless if one can see it or not.

Down under to the prosaic now. My man wanted me to give him children. I had to give up my career and raise them. My man wants me to be a nude model on the internet. I had to quit my menopause worries, enter my birthday suit and be charming for a living. I’m happy, sexually fulfilled and very clear about my extroverted intimacy. And because this post of mine pays so much tribute to quoting from others, please allow me a short one, always fit for feminists, young or mature alike.

“On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock.” ― Thomas Jefferson


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.