Gender, Horny, My favorites

I Like Basketball, You Like Fucking

I love the NBA. It surprises everybody, but I really enjoy basketball. I love playing it (not for that long because I am woefully out of shape), watching it, studying the stats of it, playing video games of it, Charles Barkley. All of it. I love it, yet people refuse to accept that I like it because it is so out of character.

I feel bad for those who like sex. People assume they don’t want a relationship. Or if you are me, and you can and do go long periods of time without sex, people assume you love relationships. This thought process is absurd. Sex and relationships are intrinsically linked, not diametrically opposed. Yet, I constantly see women who enjoy getting their rocks off, getting their hearts broken as well and nobody understanding why. “If you want to get laid, that must be your only motivation.”

Relationships are about stability. Relationships are about consistency. Relationships are about making sure that you have someone to bone with often. I don’t like relationships because I enjoy masturbation too much. If you need the sex of another, you probably also want the sex of another on a consistent basis – you probably want a relationship.

This is the the destructive thought process that has created the Christian Right’s stronghold grip on America’s “moral values.” Bear with me here, this makes sense. We’ve decided that sex and love are diametrically opposed – that sex is one thing and love is another, and sex with someone you love is very different than sex. We’ve decided that love leads to sex, when the very opposite is more often the case – sex leads to love. When we separate sex and love and decide they are in opposition, we can’t define them as equal – Jim Crow taught us that. Therefore the Christian Right has championed love and therefore downplayed the importance of sex. They’ve created abstinence only education, a xenophobic society frightened of sexual experimentation, and, most importantly, labeled sex as the devil’s work if love is god’s work. This makes people who like sex the devil – especially women. And the devil goes by a different name in our society: “Slut.” Now, if you like sex, you hate love, and you must be evil.

I hate love. I also am not ridiculously sexual. I respect those who like sex – and like it in weird ways, but I also assume they are much more likely to fall in love. That makes more sense to me, and if we all understood that, then maybe we’d stop demonizing sex because it’s not the opposite of love, but rather the embracing of it.


6 thoughts on “I Like Basketball, You Like Fucking

  1. glickstein says:

    Did you ever bother to read anything else about gender studies or sexuality or anything before you started blogging about it?

    This is stupid: Sexual intercourse and other such intimacies and vulgarities are NOT really what our culture challenges college freshmen and men of all ages to seek. It’s not sex but sexual conquest that is such a big deal in our culture, and so diametrically opposed to relationships. Its the first hookup and the realization that someone wants us that makes us consume romantic comedies, pornography, etc. It is anonymity – and the first moments of knowing. So yeah, relationships, and relationship-sex are pretty diametrically opposed to sexual conquest. So?

    • h2money says:

      Oh, ben. Your academic pretension never ceases to amaze me.

      This post is not about sexual conquest. You are absolutely right that sexual conquest is diametrically opposed to mutual respect (love). My point is that too often people’s love of sex is reduced to simply that sexual conquest that you speak of. Often a love of sex is a love of intimacy – a love of love.

      This is one of my few posts not about the expectations on males given the gender roles in our culture, instead this is a theory of how we came to think of all sex that is not done in marriage as sexual conquest. It comes from those who hold marriage on a pedestal, it comes from those who feel the need to “defend” it, it comes from the Christian Right.

      Assuming someone who wants to sleep with someone they met at a bar can’t feel the emotion of love – can’t have their heart broken – is both absurd and harmful.

  2. glickstein says:

    Maybe. The opposition of sexual conquest and sexual intimacy/commitment/marriage came from the Christian Right? I like to blame them for all sorts of shit too, but is it the Christian Right who is constantly challenging me to think that I shouldn’t be happy in my commited relationship, because “there are so many kinds of girls?”

    Maybe the Christian Right started dominating commitment, forcing liberal culture to accept the opposite (sexual conquest), which casues me daily confusion because I love my commitment but I love liberal culture.

    But probably that’s not an even half-decent explanation. Once again your desperate attempts to fit Ann Coulter’s stereotype of liberals is working and it’s making the rest of us looks stupid.

    • h2money says:

      1st: I don’t mind fitting Ann Coulter’s stereotype of a liberal.

      “Liberals don’t mind discussing who is more patriotic if patriotism is defined as redistributing income and vetoing the Pledge of Allegiance. Only if patriotism is defined as supporting America do they get testy and drone on about ‘McCarthyism.'” -AC (Not the gay one)

      I definitely believe that patriotism should be defined as loving all members of our country equally no matter what their class level or religion and not about loving the vague concept of our country without questioning its actions.

      2nd: Your 2nd paragraph is exactly my point – that by demanding that commitment and love be a “christian” thing, that us atheists liberals who enjoy sex and believe in freedom of sex are no longer allowed to feel love and enjoy commitment. We’re on the same page, Ben, you just wish you disagreed with me.

  3. glickstein says:

    If you’ll notice, my second paragraph is purposefully a paraphrase of your argument, which hurt my brain to make sense of and simplify to that point. So yes, it agrees with you by nature. My third paragraph says, with absolutely no supporting evidence, that you’re wrong, and blaming right-wingers for something that isn’t their fault. Right-wingers more likely have a choke-hold on commitment because Elvis and hippies started challenging the notion, and right-wingers clamped down tight on it. We call them reactionaries for a reason.

    And yes, I’ll go to just about any end to disagree with you.

    • h2money says:

      “We call them reactionaries for a reason.” Agreed. Reactionarieism is both a new fun word and the reason we’ve decided that anybody who is willing to question commitment as the only form of sexuality can’t like commitment at all, or, more importantly, can’t feel love – because personal emotions are not political stances, and shouldn’t be.

Leave a Reply to glickstein Cancel reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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