by Ligeia Von Hall

Sex is Not the Enemy
Even feminists should be allowed to have some fun.

Remember the Golden Days of feminism when it was actually about taking a stand and fighting for equal rights, not just judging your fellow womankind and hating anything with a penis? Yeah, I don't either, as I wasn't alive yet.

I read the USA Today article “A neo-feminist’s view of abstinence” by Elizabeth Sandoval, and it really made me angry. She starts out talking about how she's saving herself for marriage. Which is all well and good. I subscribe to the rule: "It's your body, do with it as you see fit." But a few paragraphs really got to me:

"Members of the 'Sex is Natural and Fun and If It Makes You Happy, It Can't Be That Bad' club want sex so badly that they willingly and repeatedly live out the following scenario: Things go 'great' for a month or two. Sex quickly becomes a part of your interactions. Maybe he even meets your parents. And then, well, things just change. He dumps you or you dump him.

Regardless of why the relationship died, you are now one of many women whom he could point out on the street. 'See her?' he can tell his buddies. 'She's cute, huh? Yeah, I had her.' I never want to be 'her.'"

Never mind the impossibly sloppy and boring syntax, (although that is enough to make me violent in and of itself) but saying that people “want sex so badly” is just ignorant. It makes it sound like any responsible, human adults open to casual sex (from time to time or frequently) are nothing but mindless zombies with menacing undead boners.

In my opinion, a woman who decides that she's not going to get tied down in any of today's social conventions is just as much in the right as the chick who wrote this piece of judgmental prose.

And by “today's social conventions,” I don't mean the ones she points to (a la “If Paris Hilton can do it, why can't I?”). I mean the ones that have been around for centuries. Women have always been made to feel tormented over their bodies and what they choose to do with them. The same is true today. The only difference now is that most men expect women to be freer with their bodies than we used to be, and once we are, other men and women alike talk trash about what sluts we are.

And as for the whole “sexual compatibility” argument, it seems as though Lizzy has gotten herself so caught up in “sex is important spiritually” theory that she forgot that in order for it to be conducive to any spiritual relationship, it must first work on a physical level.

Imagine, if you will, being a little girl, dreaming of the day you will find your one true love and get married. Then imagine being that same little girl and taking a pledge of abstinence. Then imagine (finally) finding Mr. or Mrs. Right. The wedding is all white roses and wine – a goddamn fairy tale. Then you get back to your honeymoon suite, dizzy with excitement and start to undress.

Who wants that moment to be wrecked by those awkward “first time” jitters? Trying to navigate someone else's body is fun for the first month, but then it gets old. And how can you tell your lover what you like in bed if you've never experienced it before?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that waiting for marriage has never made any sense to me, and probably never will. I think there is something special about sex, and maybe you shouldn't share it with just anyone. But is it our place to pass judgment on the proud few women who have the power to look their date in the eyes and say "This is what I want, this is how I want it. And don't even think about pulling your pants down that far because you won't have time to fasten them back up before I kick your ass out of my house?" I don't think so.

To that breed of woman, I applaud you. You are my heroes.