Skip to main content

In defence of the one night stand

There's a really sad feature article in yesterday's Sunday Star Times written by a woman in her late 30's who "writes in defence of the one-night stand." I found it sad, because while she apparently wrote in defence, her own words showed just how damaging such a lifestyle is to a person.

It started with losing her virginity at age 14. It seems to have taught her to use men and let herself be used in turn by them. Not that she saw that; her only regret was that she was used, ie not cared for by the boy she had sex with. The fact that it was her choice also seems to vindicate the experience as if choosing ought to remove any regret.
I was "going out" with the guy, but we broke up soon after, and I watched him go through a succession of teenage girls. It does annoy me that someone who didn't really care about me was my first time - but it was still my choice. Really, I just wanted to get it over with, to see what it was all about.
There there are the two following statements about sex that don't gel. The first talks about how she feels sex ought to be.
I think it’s healthy to think of sex as fun, to not attach too much importance to “getting it right” actually, if you think of sex like that, you hardly ever have a bad experience. It is, simply, just another experience.
The next is her actual experience.
It’s kind of a 72-hour roller coaster. Day one: euphoria and the lingering memory of intimacy, it’s like being hugged, for a really long time. Day two: hangover recovery. Day three: the realisation you are still alone.
Here's more about the virtue of choice that vindicates anything.
There’s an assumption that a woman who goes willingly into a one-night stand must have low self-esteem. Actually, I like myself. I also like sex. Sue me.
It’s your choice. It should always be your choice. I can think of only one occasion where I knew I didn’t want to do it, even as I put my key in my front door. You learn from those experiences.
Her major worry is that she will be judged. She rationalises that she's only had 19 sexual partners, therefore she's not promiscuous as the Kiwi woman's average is over that number (really? there must be a heck of a lot of us pulling that average down).

Do I judge her? No. I feel sorry for her. What a waste of a life.

Related Link: Judgement Call ~ Sunday Star Times

Comments

  1. While agreeing with your sentiments Lucyna, it takes two to tango.
    Boys can be used as well.
    And either party becomes willing players.
    Kiwi chicks often want it too.
    Rightly or wrongly, this is how it is in 21st century New Zealand.
    Of course, the best sex takes place within a stable, loving relationship.
    And that's what i want too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It seems to me that fifty percent of generation Y are loutish narcissists whose main aim in life is getting laid/doped/drunk or setting a new land speed record through urban streets. For a lack of vision the people cast off restraint. The lie that young people embrace is they can sow their wild oats, devalue themselves with promiscuity and debauchery, but then at age 30 settle down as if nothing had happened. But that sort of living is totally destructive to the human heart, emotional and spiritual stability required for a stable marriage and happy family. It's easy to corrupt your character, and very hard (needing divine assistance) to reform a misspent youth.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What Ropata said. Absolutely.

    ReplyDelete
  4. FairFacts,

    I agree that boys can be used as well. While I didn't make the post about that in particular, I do mention it in passing when I say:

    It seems to have taught her to use people and let herself be used in turn by them.

    Maybe I should have been clearer, because in this case this woman is using men for casual sex and in turn allowing herself to be used by them.

    Ropata & KG,

    the problem is deeper than just Gen Y. The writer is in her late 30's, so she's Gen X, not Gen Y.

    I know a number of Gen X parents and was horrified last year at a conversation I was involved in where these Gen X parents were talking about how some of their hard-working, serious Gen Y teenagers need to lighten up. Getting a boyfriend/girlfriend was seen to be the cure. Of course, I was unable to put forward a coherent opposing point of view beyond my own experience of being a teenager which was very different from that of the other parents, because I would "see" once my children were old enough. ie I had no teenagers, so any opinion I offered would have been ignored.

    I would guess the problem goes back even further, to how Gen X'ers are now raising children were raised themselves by baby boomers.

    My parents weren't baby boomers - they were older, and that older generation had a whole different set of problems (missing parents lost to the war, etc).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Actually, I'll change my post and change the word people to men.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What a waste of a life.

    How gracious of you not to judge her . . .

    ReplyDelete
  7. Was that an opinion sneaking in there Danyl?

    A strong reaction from many liberals is the notion of how evil it is to judge some-one, to have an opinion about them, or their behaviour. Such people often characterise this judgment as unwarranted, or simply that people really have no right to judge others, and they wish they wouldn't.

    There is another way of looking at this however, and that is (and I know I'm generalizing here) is that some people who "judge" others do so from a position of natural concern. There is an element of care for others in this.

    I noticed some teenagers smoking at the bus stop the other day. I was wondering if I should say something. I judged that they were making poor decisions that would greatly impact them in the future. I was concerned for their well being. "What a waste - of health, of time, of money". In the end, I said nothing because it seemed likely that was all that would get through to them. But I was concerned.

    To flip this around - people that want the freedom to do whatever they want, without judgment, don't therefore expect to judge others. But sometimes, I've found it's more because they don't actually care about others. They are so focused on themselves and their right to pleasure and freedom, their empathy levels are down a few notches.

    Again, I'll repeat, I'm generalizing. Calm down. I'm going to go with this point anyway. There's something in it to consider.

    Another point is - what is so wrong with judging something as destructive behaviour and pointing this out? Are liberals judging that opinions are not allowed any more?

    Of course, the big fear is that people are worried just because people judge something as destructive, means we would therefore want to ban it. That's a bigger jump to make, and always worth clarifying rather than assuming.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There's nothing wrong with judging people Zen - although since the person who wrote the article did so anonymously and could be self-made millionaire or a neurosurgeon (or whatever) it seems a little rough to write off their entire life as wasted on the grounds that they relish an occasional bout of casual sex. But what I was really making fun of was Lucyna's high-minded declaration that she wasn't judging the author and then instantly judging her as harshly as possible. Nice.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Danyl, that's a stupid attempt at a circuit-breaker. No one is an island. Actions have consequences. The SST author is justifying self-destructive behaviour that contradicts the fundamentals of a healthy, happy life. Promiscuity is usually associated with all sorts of disorders, especially depression. The "Sex and the City" lifestyle is undoubtedly a very significant factor in the number of broken-hearted, cynical singles trying to distract themselves from their meaningless, loveless existence.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Danyl, perhaps Michael Laws can explain it better then:

    I came late to parenthood despite having two great older kids. I was not mature enough or smart enough in my early, early 20s to understand what I understand now. That parenthood is the most important job ever. More important than being prime minister or a pop star or a professional sportsman.

    So Anon might be a self-made millionaire or a neurosurgeon and taking away nothing from their "work-life" achievements, you might find that they ultimately rank the hours they spent in the office a little below the deep and lasting emotional relationships they form with others. I don't take Lucyna's comment to mean the person automatically wastes their ENTIRE life, but an attempt to underscore the importance this part of her life ultimately plays.

    It seems that Anon's own words, as pointed out by Lucyna, supports Lucyna's observation.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Danyl, we both probably have a different definition of what judging someone means. To you, I would guess, it means making any sort implication that what someone has chosen is not for the best is making a judgement of that person. To me, judging someone is to condemn them for making inappropriate choices. There is no explicit condemnation in my post, though, a sensitive person who has made similar choices in their life may read that into my words and react as if I were condemning them.

    I think the writer already realises that what she is doing is not healthy for her and there is implicit in her words a desire to break free. But at the same time she is trying justify her choices and probably is seeking approval from society at large. Sadly too, a great deal of NZ society will give her that approval.

    I hope that writing this article will give her the impetus she needs to take a cold hard look at her life and the choices she's made over the last number of decades that have left her alone. Through doing that she may be able to break free.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "could be self-made millionaire or a neurosurgeon (or whatever)"

    ...or a financial company executive like BlueChip's Bryers who really loved his prostitute orgies apparently.

    Like it or not life isn't like Sex in the City.
    From a material point of view, most people don't have the financial resources to play the field like a $300k p.a. "Carrie".

    Appealing to authority I cite the stoic Seneca who pointed out that the poets created unrealistic expectations and appetites in the people by regaling them stories of the "gods" various sexual shennanigans.

    Seneca's observation is accurate today. Instead of poets we have Wendyl Nissen's paparazzi powered "celebrity gossip (women's) mags" spinning us salacious stories of Paris or Britney, Monaco royals or PDiddy.

    The expectation is supported by Coro St and Shorters plots and while we're not really supposed to take any notice any of this crap, the "poets" of our time do distort our expectations of sexual conquest.

    It's not until we're paying 18-24% of our average paycheck as child support and we've lost the family and the home that we realise that as a 'mortal' we don't have the resources for conquest commanded by 'gods' like Jonah, Joan Collins, or Gene Simmons (KISS and of recent sex scandal fame).

    ReplyDelete
  13. The fact she writes anonymously undermines her whole argument. She can't be too serious about defending the one-night stand if she is embarrassed by it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Buggered if I'd write about my sex life under my real name Sean, no matter what I felt about it!

    But at the same time she is trying justify her choices and probably is seeking approval from society at large. Sadly too, a great deal of NZ society will give her that approval.

    Depends what you mean by "approval." She certainly has my approval, if you consider respecting how she wants to live her life to be approval.

    As someone who can barely remember sex with someone other than his wife, I'm lacking knowledge in this area. That said, for all that we can feel superior for the deep intimacy of our own relationships, there's a flip side. She writes "Day three: the realisation you are still alone," and we get to feel smug - but there's a shitload of women out there who'd be way better off if they were waking up alone, rather than with the scumbag they've ended up saddled with. If this anonymous woman is realistic about and happy with her choices, good on her.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I came late to parenthood despite having two great older kids. I was not mature enough or smart enough in my early, early 20s to understand what I understand now. That parenthood is the most important job ever. More important than being prime minister or a pop star or a professional sportsman.

    How wise of Laws to conclude that his parenthood is more important to him than three jobs he stands no chance of obtaining. I think being a parent is important too - but different people have different priorities (this is one of those evident principles most people grasp in their late teenage years and that you lot may also someday learn). I know a couple of elderly scientists that made the explicit decision that their work was more important than their families and devoted their lives to their careers. Their children and wives suffered accordingly. Look around your office, you'll see that - conciously or unconciously, many people you work with have made similar decisions. It's great that Laws has found a way to give his life meaning - but I'd like him to meet my old boss from my merchant banking days who would kindly and patiently explain to him that his failure to accumulate hundreds of millions of dollars by his age makes him an abject, utter failure.
    People have different ways of keeping score. That's just how it is.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The fact she writes anonymously undermines her whole argument. She can't be too serious about defending the one-night stand if she is embarrassed by it.

    Hey Sean - you forgot to tell us your last name!

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'd tell you it was Hussein, but I fear being branded a Muslim - not a popular thing at some of the blogs I frequent ;-)

    Actually it's not particularly hidden. Click on the Blogger profile and follow your nose!

    ReplyDelete
  18. She sounds like a bit of a bullshitter to me. After all, she's in her 30s, likes one night stands, and has only scored 19 in say, 15 years? What does she do for the other 360 odd days of the year?

    Get the picture? She occasionally beds some punter from Ekatahuna once a year when he's up for the A&P Show or whatever.

    For the rest of the year she's the most forgettable person in the room.

    Basically, she's pathetic. A skank who can't get laid without a drunk topping off his Overland Experience.

    There's nothing about her job, nothing about her sex life of even passing interest, no OE experience, no bedding of anyone of the slightest interest, no women friends, no presence and no future.

    I'm afraid this is just a dreamer who can't even do the math to enhance the fantasy.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  19. If you listen to no one and offer no one any advice or direction, then you become indifferent and others become indifferent to you, that is loneliness.

    ReplyDelete
  20. FFM said.
    "Of course, the best sex takes place within a stable".
    You sick bastard fairfacts, get a grip and sort yourself out!

    The girl quoted is just another young twit who is a part of the big brother look at me generation.
    Not everything is linear Lucyna, most things are cyclical.

    ReplyDelete
  21. That is brilliant BB. And don't forget his follow up comment "And that's what i want too."

    ReplyDelete
  22. Indeed, what the hell is occurring at FFM's secret lair in Waiwera.
    Concerned readers. Lock up your pets.

    ReplyDelete
  23. (this is one of those evident principles most people grasp in their late teenage years and that you lot may also someday learn).

    Danyl, you take things so absolutely. Of course it is obvious people have different priorities. I don't think you need to assume Michael Laws would be promoting his experience as "the only truth". It's his way of explaining just how profound an effect the birth of his daughter Lucy had on his outlook. That's why I selected his quote - to illustrate that passion.

    But to gain an understanding of the intent, look past the semantics. Your smears are off the mark.

    ReplyDelete
  24. She sounds like a bit of a bullshitter to me. After all, she's in her 30s, likes one night stands, and has only scored 19 in say, 15 years? What does she do for the other 360 odd days of the year?

    I thought that she mentioned she spent several years in a committed and faithful relationship.

    I think people can be socialized to treating casual sex casually. However, it seems that, people being emotionally complex creatures, that such a simple concept is not always so easily attained.

    As Danyl says, people have different ways of keeping score.

    But frequent scoring may not produce as high a score as first thought.

    ReplyDelete
  25. 1. People have different ways of keeping score. Obvious!
    2. The scientist who is uncoupled just hasn't employed the right post-doc yet! Ha!

    3. As to the original story about respecting her right to pretend she's the oh so fabulous Carrie from Sex in the City, anyone note the recent NEJM report about the dramatic rise in oral cancer in young people?

    These tongue and throat cancers are caused by HPV-16 -18, the cervical cancer viruses. For men and women with more than 6 sexual partners the risk of developing the cancer was 9x normal.
    In case it needs to be spelt out, these particular HPV get into you mouth through oral sex. Increased oral "relations" means oral cancer risk.

    Compared to smoking, which increases risk of these cancers by 3-4 times, the HPV 9x increase is significantly more dangerous.

    So if "Carrie" is particularly unlucky she'll end up in a medical journal with a black bar across her eyes.
    How chic!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.