So says one New York woman who is apparently following a new trend: celibacy. Sex in New York City has apparently become so devalued, so unimportant, that it’s being compared to fast food or cheap junk food. Some women are starting to figure out that sleeping around is not going to get them emotional fulfillment and it isn’t going to find them love. Celibacy is now becoming the new craze in New York. But, as you can see, these women aren’t necessarily learning their lesson.
Two weeks ago, Katie Jean Arnold had her celibacy wake-up call. After hooking up with a stranger on the L train platform and going back to his place, she woke up at his apartment and decided to leave. On her way out the door, he came up to her, naked, and said the words she’ll never forget: “What’s your name?”
It was then that she made her Big Decision.
No. More. Sex.
She’s led a sex-free life ever since. It’s not a long time to remain chaste, you might argue, but the 29-year-old musician did a “celibacy cleanse” back in 2003 for eight months and says it made her feel fantastic. This time, she says she’s going to wait until she gets a record deal and puts out her first album before succumbing to temptation.
“Not having sex is like giving up junk food,” says Arnold. “Sex in New York for me had become like the 99-cent package of Ding Dongs on the corner.”
Arnold is more of a trendsetter than she realizes. In this month’s Playboy, Ashley Dupre says of sex: “I’m very good at it, but I’m saving that.” In April, Lady Gaga said, “I’m celibate, celibacy’s fine,” adding that it was something she wanted to “celebrate” with fans. Courtney Love is also on the no-sex bandwagon, declaring she’s been celibate for four years — adding that without it she never could have finished her new record, “Nobody’s Daughter.”
Less — when it comes to sex — is definitely more, argues Hephzibah Anderson, the author of “Chastened,” a new tome touting the lessons she learned during a sex-free year, from August 2006 to August 2007, a quarter of which she spent in New York.
“By tuning out some of that hyper-sexualized, porn-y clamor, you find yourself tuning into a sort of a subtler romance and being attracted to a different kind of guy,” says the 34-year-old London resident who frequents Manhattan. She was inspired to give up sex right before turning 30 when she saw her college boyfriend walking out of De Beers on Fifth Avenue with a smiling blonde.
… Nowhere is it more full-on all the time than in New York, where men declare frustration over having to wait more than one date for sex and — as Arnold proved — hooking up is as simple as waiting for a train.
… She’s at the point, she says, where she doesn’t want to seek intimacy without the potential for a serious relationship. “I’ve always been against the New York version of fast-food sex. Believe me, come on, please, I’ve slept with guys I don’t love before, but I’ve frankly reached the age where I don’t want to do that anymore. I’ve dipped my toes in those waters, and it’s cold.”
Currently redirecting her passions into her writing, Allison is not the only one who’s refocused all that unused sexual tension into a creative pursuit.
“I totally sublimate all of my sexual energy into making wedding dresses because I feel like I need something constructive to channel my energy into,” says Colette Komm, a 28-year-old couture designer who lives on the Upper West Side.
“I’ve seen how people treat sex: like a crutch, like a weapon, like a temporary fix to their problems,” she says. “I’ve seen how some girls think they’re protecting their sexuality by giving it away. Like, ‘This means nothing to me if I take away all the emotional significance of sex.’”
It’s as if a light bulb suddenly went on in these girls’ heads, and they realized — the feminist brainwashing was a lie. Sexual empowerment is a myth. Slutting around like Samantha on Sex and the City does not bring you love or happiness or freedom.
Of course, for some, the light bulb is still a little dim. The first example was going through a celibacy “cleanse”. It’s like a detox diet for her, I guess — you know those diets, where you eat nothing but organic food and drink water and take some kind of special medication and it supposedly cleanses all of the toxins and impurities out? I guess that’s what celibacy is for this girl, because she’s only holding off until she gets a record deal. And then what? She’s going to give it up for the next guy she meets at a train station, or is she going to have learned her lesson?
I’m not saying women should wait to be married before they have sex. It’s the ideal, obviously, but I certainly fell short of that ideal. Sex should, however, be saved for someone special. You should be in a committed relationship before you sleep with someone, and two dates does not equal a committed relationship. I’ve been where these girls are. I can tell every single girl out there who sleeps around with abandon that there is one thing that will stick with you forever: you will regret it. There will come a day where you will meet that man, and you will wish you could take it all back. Giving yourself away to any stranger you barely know is not empowering. It’s degrading.
I blame this half on Hollywood, and half on feminism. In movies, the main characters always go out on one, maybe two dates. They have such a strong connection that they just roll into bed together, and it solidifies their bond because, of course, they are simply meant for each other. Girls do this in real life and expect the same results, and are puzzled when time and time again, the guy they had an “amazing bond” with doesn’t call back again.
It wasn’t an amazing bond, sweetie. It was post-coital endorphins.
And then, of course, there’s feminism and the Big Lie they’ve been indoctrinating into girls for decades: that you can sleep around like a man and you’ll be just as happy, or more happy, actually, because sex can be empowering. Of course, this has led to nothing more than guys who no longer see a reason to put the effort into winning a woman, and girls who feel used and depressed because every guy they meet tosses them away after a few dates. It’s sad, really, because in this generation, who is telling girls the fundamental truth: that by waiting, you have an extraordinary amount of power? Feminists act as if having sex like men is some kind of strength for women, that the old-fashioned, traditional version of dating was nothing but the misogynistic patriarchal version of relationships. Single guys, especially single guys in their twenties, will have sex with whoever’s willing to give it up. It’s like walking into a frat house with a keg and yelling, “FREE BEER!” and expecting them to politely say no thank you. The traditional version of dating gave women all the power. The feminist version, meanwhile, has tipped the scales and now women sit desperately by their phones, wondering why he hasn’t called and what they’ve done wrong. It used to be that men had to earn sex with a woman. They had to be romantic, they had to set up dates, they had to call, they had to woo her. Women think about this chivalrous style of dating and they pine for it — and then go right along their merry way, sleeping around like their feminist sisters taught them to. Why? Feminists want women to be just like men, and men sleep around, ergo, women should sleep around. It never occurred to them that just because men slept around, it didn’t mean women should do it. It’s not a positive thing for either sex, and we’re seeing the results now.
Women are feeling more and more used. You’ve got these New York women comparing sex to fast food, for cripe’s sake. To men, it’s gotta be like going to Taco Bell: you pull in, get yourself a nice taco, and then pull outta there. What was the name of the girl who sold you the taco again? Who knows? Who cares?
Meanwhile, these New York women can’t figure out why their exes are buying diamonds for new girls while they’re still sleeping around. News flash: men don’t usually marry girls who sleep around. They marry the nice girls who they had to work for.
I feel pretty cynical about this whole celibacy craze, but hey, hopefully it does catch on. My thought is this: at some point, girls are going to have to wake up to the destructive path they’re on. They’re going to need to change what their tactics, so to speak, and stop devaluing themselves so much. Maybe this is that first spark that will start the celibacy fire. Holding out for sex does not make you a prude and it doesn’t make you a slave to the patriarchy, either.
It makes you smart enough to know that you are an amazing woman with something special to offer an amazing man who deserves you… and is willing to work to earn you.
Cross-posted at The Green Room.
Welcome, Instapundit readers!
Sabba Hillel says: This seems to be why it is better to be religious than not. Being religious teaches you the truth without having to learn the hard way. You understand the reason behind the way you are supposed to act and you do the right thing from the beginning. The way the article describes celibacy, it is just the new fact to “make you feel good” and will last just as until the next thing comes along. It is only when people realize what the “right thing to do” is that they will be able to find fulfillment and actually continue with the correct behavior. Until then, they will keep bouncing around never understanding why they are “not happy”.
Big Mo says: “It wasn’t an amazing bond, sweetie. It was post-coital endorphins.”
That was a great line, Cassy! I think I’ll use that for my 14-year-old foster daughter if she ignores my threat to put her in a convent until age 25 if she decides to give in to some dreamy “soul mate” at school.
“there is one thing that will stick with you forever: you will regret it. There will come a day where you will meet that man, and you will wish you could take it all back”
You can reverse the genders in that statement and it’s still true….
Big Mo says: Hey, Cassy, I’d like to reference this post in a book I’m writing that deals with Christianity amid postmodern American culture, if that’s OK.
Smithwick says: “Feminists want women to be just like men, and men sleep around, ergo, women should sleep around.”
Some guys. Although most guys I know out of their teens would probably not be quite as slutty as this woman. If for no other reason than fear of STDs (especially AIDS), unintended pregnancy and of course psychotic stalkers. Really you ought to know the persons name and some of their history first before considering it. Even with a condom there are plenty of risks with picking up random people on the subway for sex.
Corrie says: This rocked Cassy!
I can’t believe these women who think that a year without sex is some sort of struggle. Crikey, it’s easy.
There will come a day where you will meet that man, and you will wish you could take it all back. Giving yourself away to any stranger you barely know is not empowering. It’s degrading.
Even if he’s not a stranger, it’s still a bad idea. I cannot tell you how many men I’ve befriended and dated, then refused to sleep with them after a few weeks or months, only to later realise that I learned my lesson the easy way. You just cannot know someone well enough to decide if you want to trust that person with something so intimate.
Even Steve Harvey said to wait three months, minimum: he likened it to a company that waits to give benefits to its employees until they have proven that they are trustworthy and will stick around.
Basic common sense.
Topher says: In the young adult age group, NYC is approximately two thirds women. What’s been going on in Manhattan is young women destroying themselves in a sexual price war – no matter where or when, people want the affection and attention of the opposite sex, and there are so many more women than men that they play along with a harem game to get whatever attention they can. Supply and demand rules. (The reverse is true on the west coast, where conceited princessdom reigns supreme.)
This price war then spawns a culture that seeks to glorify that very destruction, in the same way that austere lifestyles or diets, which used to be signs of great privation, are now lauded and romanticized. Now that culture has become so pervasive that going two weeks without a new random sex partner is considered a radical act.
“Feminists want women to be just like men, and men sleep around, ergo, women should sleep around.”
Feminists commit two major fallacies: unfounded stereotyping and cart-before-the-horse. First, most men do not sleep around; this is because of opportunity, most men cannot attract a large number of sex partners. Don’t mistake frat-house guys for regular dudes. Secondly, feminists recognized that sexual power was a sign of male accomplishment and “alpha,” but then figured if THEY had a lot of sex, they would feel and be seen as powerful. This failed – exhibiting a symptom of power does not make one powerful.
Why are men assenting to this hookup system? Relatively plenty of men would like to have serious girlfriends, but the system is too stressful. Remember that “modern” dating is even bigger a losing game for men than it was in the “patriarchy” days. Today, urban women are pickier than ever, and picky in manifold and irrelevant details vis a vis their lifelong fantasies. Read online dating profiles sometimes for fun – men are expected to be seven contradictory things at once and spend even MORE money and attention “wooing” a woman today, and if they don’t measure up on the 300-point checklist they get kicked to the curb. (The checklist was hilariously self-parodied in “Up In The Air.”)
Then on the other side of the street, you have these “liberated” women who will sleep around and not make a bothed, and it’s not hard to figure why young men will go for the latter.
Half Canadian says: I’ve been reading Roissy’s blog for a while, and ironically enough, this is his exact opinion, in spite of his own promiscuity (the man is a classic narcissist, and hypocrite, but is self aware to realize the latter). The feminist view of sexuality has been a boon for him, and a bust for most women (particularly the ones he screws).
Actually, the uber-myth here is that most guys (in former times) slept around. Given the staggeringly low out-of-wedlock birthrates in the US (<6% vs. ~40% today) before the 'sexual revolution' (pre-Pill, pre-legal-abortion), it's pretty clear that if guys had pre-marital sex back then, it was either with their soon-to-be wives (whether that was their plan or not) or with the same few girls that all the other guys were sleeping with.
The double standard — and it really was a double standard — was that in the latter case, the guys were just "sowing wild oats" and the girls were "sluts". Unfortunately, the effort to eradicate that double standard went (IMHO) in the wrong direction. ..bruce..
P.S. For those you wanting to see out-of-wedlock birthrates for the last 60 years, check Table M-1 here: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/greenbook2003/AppendixM.pdf.
CCH says: Speaking of dim…you’re a bit of a sexist sow, aren’t you?
You seem to think only of women in these matters. If a woman avoids sex, it’s assumed that she’s being choosy. If a man does the same, the hypotheses are a lot more invidious.
This isn’t some big step forward for women. This is the same old thing. Of course, men are largely abandoning the idea of relationships as well…and who can blame them?
Ken Hahn says: The feminists gave women the freedom to behave like men. Isn’t it a shock that women find out that isn’t exactly what they wanted?
chb3 says: celibacy refers to the state of being unmarried, it is not a reference to sexual innactivity. other than that, good writing.
It’s very sad – the best that feminists seem to have to offer is a poor imitation of the worst behavior of men from the last 10,000 years. I don’t want to be equal – I want to be exceptional in the gender/roles I’ve been given (and yes, I view them as a gift).
I learned this the hard way in college and after college got straight with God and stayed away from any physical intimacy in dating relationships – it was too damaging, demeaning and risky for me in terms of staying away from narcissistic irresponsible morons (sorry guys, nothing personal, just had bad taste). Four years later when I got engaged after dating my now husband for a mere 3 months, a co worker asked me “what, are you pregnant?” to which I replied “not unless you believe the immaculate conception happens twice”. Their response: Embarrasment and “well that was too much information”. Talk about irony-challenged….
bart simpson says: Sex clouds your judgment.
Between a husband and wife, this is a feature of human sexuality, not a bug in the design. In addition to bonding the couple together, regular sex helps blind you to the minor imperfections that everyone has and smooths over the little irritations that inevitably arise between two people.
Outside that permanent relationship, this feature works to your detriment. The “post-coital endorphins” can blind you to significant problems in the other person that you would otherwise notice much sooner, before you’ve invested so much of yourself in the relationship. This makes it difficult to decide whether this is “the right one” or just a good lay.
No disrespect meant to Cassy or anyone else, but a “committed relationship” is not the same thing as marriage. Those who have had both know this firsthand. “Commitment” is defined by a couple for themselves – it can and does mean different things to different people and can be re-defined at any time. This is a recipe for differing expectations, one person getting used by another and hurt feelings. Marriage on the other hand is a universal institution in human societies – the norm from the beginning has always been one man for one woman for both their entire lives. The definition is EXTERNAL to the individual. This gives it a permanence and stability that “committed relationships” can never have, no matter how sincere the feelings of those involved in one.
Guys, if she’s that great, marry her. If not, say goodbye and move on. Get off the fence and quit hiding behind “commitment” to avoid making that life-altering decision.
Tex Lovera says: CCH @ #11:
WTF? You certainly know how to put words in other people’s mouths!
Cassy never said that if a man avoids sex, “the hypotheses are a lot more invidious”. (And what do YOU mean by that? That the guy must be gay?).
Of course, once that premise is destroyed, the rest of your comment is rendered…moot.
Dim, indeed…..
Mike says: This is not the meaning of “celibacy.” Most people go for months without sex from time to time in their lives, and they are not “celibates.”
Topher says: Half Canadian,
“young women destroying themselves in a sexual price war”
I stole this line straight off a comment on Roissy’s site.
For those of you who don’t read him, Roissy is an excellent writer. I imagine he is a bit harder edged on the blog than he is in person, and it takes a while to get used to his time-warp style and splitting the line between describing how the world is and discussing how it should be…but if you are interested in sexual politics, he is almost unequaled.
MEC2 says: “You should be in a committed relationship before you sleep with someone”
Verbatim to words spoken to my own children. It’s not abstinence, it’s rational behavior, and advice well followed by people at any age.
Splashman says: I don’t agree with Bart Simpson on anything, but I agree 100% with @bart simpson (#13). Cassy’s post is well-intentioned, but ultimately useless, as “committed relationship” is not an objective standard. “Married” is the only relevant objective standard. And yes, it is possible to meet that standard — my wife and I were both virgins when we got married 19+ years ago. Among other benefits, there’s no worrying about STDs, no jealousy over former “relationships”, and absolutely no regrets.
POWinCA says: I never watched Sex and the City when it was popular (I never watch shows when they’re popular). But I caught up on it during a marathon weekend. I found most of the characters, especially Samantha, revolting. I’m pretty sure I would have turned her down flat.
Charlotte was super-hot, and I guess it was her demure style and idealistic pursuit of romance that was so attractive – or maybe it was just that she was a hot brunette. When she hooked up with the short, hairy, ugly troll it disgusted me enough to never watch again. I still can’t get that image out of my head.
Anyway, I remember reading this article about herbivore men in Japan who have given up on sex. I don’t blame them. With all the competition and the cost, other pursuits are both healthier and less costly
Looking back at my…experience, I wish I had a lot of do-overs or, rather, a lot more do-nots. It’s hard to regret because it was so much fun – like visiting a different foreign country each time, but there are many places I wouldn’t visit once.
With a little more wisdom, I would have realized the sensations were fleeting and actually “getting to know the woman” would have spared me a lot of grief later. It was probably insecurity or the thrill of victory. Putting another notch in my gun handles. Adding to the score. Just not being alone. Looking for love in all the wrong places. Waiting for Ms. Right to walk around the corner.
La Passion! Oh, when the chemistry was right there was nothing like it! But that fire burned you if you weren’t careful.
It always seemed like such a good idea at the time, though.
Bob says: Let’s see if I understand this correctly.
Women are encouraged to be celibate before marriage.
After being married and having kids, women return to celibacy and expect their husbands to be celibate.
OK, got it. Whether people want to admit it or not, marriage is a bad deal for men.
Topher says: “a co worker asked me “what, are you pregnant?” to which I replied “not unless you believe the immaculate conception happens twice”.”
I hate to pick a nit, but the immaculate conception refers to the conception of Mary without sin, not the conception of Jesus without sex. (We can debate if Jesus was really “conceived” at all.)
@Bob May 15, 2010 • 7:10 am:
After being married and having kids, women return to celibacy and expect their husbands to be celibate.
Wow, you married the wrong lady.
Phang says: Damn, and I’m still single at 38. Guess I’ll have to move to New York before Cassie ruins it all.
tlauf says: Almost everyone adult I know, both male and female, had pre-marital sex. Most of them are currently happily married (one couple divorced and happily remarried) and none have ever expressed “regrets” about their previous sex lives. They are not bitter, angry, empty, STD riddled, or wracked with guilt.
I wonder if the people I know are really very different from the people you guys seem to know. Certainly my friends are different from these NYC women, but are these women really all that representative?
MissaA says: They marry the nice girls who they had to work for.
That’s funny. I guess my fiance didn’t get the memo, since we had sex on our first date. I guess he must actually enjoy my company, or something like that.
That’s funny. I guess my fiance didn’t get the memo, since we had sex on our first date. I guess he must actually enjoy my company, or something like that.
One of my friends married a girl that he had sex with on the second (and every subsequent) date. They got divorced last year.
When sex isn’t there, MissaA, and things in your relationship become hard, your marriage may very well far apart. For your sake, I hope that doesn’t happen, but the odds aren’t on your side, because sex is the glue to a relationship, not the foundation. As but one example: something like 16% of couples divorce within a year after the birth of their first child, which is probably one of the single-biggest disruptions that can happen to a couple’s sex life.
Of course, Amanda Marcotte, who extols the liberating virtues of sex, disagrees. Her readers seem to think that, horrors! since you haven’t had children yet, despite being married, you must be some sort of huge hypocrite. And your pictures! Oh, my, they’re just so horrible.
Well, tomorrow is our thirty-first wedding anniversary. I know, I know, I’m just so uncool, so out of it, for having slept with just one woman for the past three decades, so what would I know.
Cisco says: Thank you! This is such a great article.
As a teenager, I slept around quite a bit. Between the ages of 14 and 16 I slept with 6 men, which certainly isn’t a large number compared to what others have under their belts, but it’s not something I’m proud of and wish that I hadn’t done.
But, at the relatively young age of sixteen I realized that what I was doing was wrong and I was receiving no fulfillment from it, I had a horrible reputation. So I decided I would only sleep with guys that I was committed to and have never looked back. As said in the article you’ve quoted: “I’ve dipped my toes in those waters, and it’s cold.”
Abstaining before marriage is ideal, but having sex before marriage isn’t necessarily “bad” or “wrong.” I believe that having casual sex, sex for the sake of having sex and nothing more is wrong, and I whole-heartedly disagree with people who do that, and will make it known if they discuss such matters with me.
People nowadays seem to think that the sex comes first in a relationship, and based on the quantity and quality of the sex will decide if they want to commit. Guys especially seem to think that if a woman isn’t willing to have sex/oral sex after the first few weeks of dating that she is uninterested, a prude, frigid, etc.
I think that this new “trend” of celibacy is great.
Women who think that they gain respect and empowerment via promiscuity have been lied to and duped, big time. This lie has been perpetuated by women who are trying to make themselves feel better about their behavior.
Not only is sleeping around immoral, but it’s dangerous as well. There is nothing safe about being alone with a strange man that you’ve just met hours ago. That’s how people get murdered.
Perhaps this promiscuous behavior gains people respect amongst like-minded feminist women, but the rest of American society has no respect for the “slut” and “whore.”
I could say more, but you’ve already said basically everything that needs to be said!
Kudos.
I think you dump on feminism too generally.
I would say that your recognition that many men tend to use women, without wanting to put anything more into the relationship is feminist. Your assertion that what these particular men want (sex without strings)is not necessarily the best option for all women is also feminist.
However, subtle implications that sex is the most valuable thing women have to offer men is not so much.
The second wave of feminism was considered by many frigid and sex negative, and the third wave (which is generalized as “feminism” by today’s younger women) is considered license to sleep with as many men as possible. Both miss the mark of what the movement is actually saying.
It’s amazing to see you take ONE women’s story and start using the plural as if no one would notice. This is a great example of how everyone is different, there are millions of stories out there of women feeling differently about sex, and that your experience is different than this woman’s is different then the next person you’ll speak to (perhaps one of those slutty feminists who like to lie to women so they’ll give it up?). How shameful is it to quote one example and then describe a “trend” towards celibacy or to watch Sex and the City and think you know every aspect of New York City hook up culture and how it effects women (and men).
A lot of people would use all kinds of ugly language to describe a woman like you who didn’t wait til marraige, but I will only judge you for pushing a synthetic and blaming ideology onto other people when you yourself realized that it wasn’t going to work for you.
Oh, and learn something about feminism before you buy into what cheap crooks on TV tell you it is.
LilithJezebel says: I’m a feminist and I’ve never had sex despite having been in serious relationships.
This is not because of feminism. You’re generalizing and that brings your intelligence into question, not that of the women you are citing. No two women are exactly the same, just as no two men are the same. For an accurate description of what is going on here, you would need to talk to every single woman who fits the age range you are mostly referring to. That, however, cannot easily be done. As a result, any and all conclusions you draw from the information you have gathered is invalid as it does not represent the whole in any way.
Alisa says: I love you for this post!!! You pretty much said everything that has been on my mind for a while. I’m a single 21 year old girl living in a rural area. It is so hard to find a quality guy because the market has been flooded with easy sex. Let’s be honest, a guy in his 20s would rather get some cheap tail then whine and dine a woman. So that leaves girls like me SOL. I don’t want to join the game of sleeping with a bunch of guys like a fake Samantha from SATC. I have hope that I will find someone who wants the same thing as me. Thanks for writing this, I’m glad I’m not the only person who feels this way.
Jane says: Girls go for hotties, women go for fat wallets :)))))
Stop judging girls, thanks. Girls have all the fun, ahahahaha.
jason says: Oh gosh, what a terrible line: It used to be that men had to earn sex with a woman. Sex isn’t something that women have that men want; it is a mutual experience. If I am going to “earn” sex with a woman, why not just earn money and purchase the sex on a street corner? What an absurd, arrogant statement for a woman to make. You have to earn sex with me. Because alas, there are many women out there who wanted to have sex–and only sex–not a relationship. They came over to my house and just wanted to hit it and quit it. They initiated it. Of course I foolishly gave in, thinking that there was more to it, but then they left and never did reply to my attempts to contact them.
44 Comments