Sunday, August 30, 2009

Nina Atwood and the Chauvinistic View of Female Sexuality

Nina Atwood's relationship advice books have always scared me with their unapologetically chauvinistic view of female sexuality. Naturally, if she were an only unenlightened fool to produce this kind of nonsense, her ideas wouldn't be so scary. They have, however, become widely disseminated in the media. So widely, in fact, to have become mainstream.

The main tenets of Atwood's chauvinistic teachings are:
a) the worst thing you can do for a budding relationship "is to get sexual too soon". A woman's central strategy has to consist of "putting off sex until you have a real relationship with a commitment." Atwood doesn't explain, of course, why any sane individual of any gender would start a "relationship with a commintment" before figuring out if you are even sexually compatible. There is even less explanation for why anybody would even want to start a "real relationship" with a person who uses sex as a manipulation device from the very start;
b) after sex, the man should feel "obligated" because your "self-respect as a woman demands it". The most annoying thing here is Atwood's use of pseudo-feminist vocabulary to justify a decidedly anti-feminist attitude. According to her, a woman has to trade sex for commitment and obligation. In her world, sex is what a man wants, while commitment is what a woman needs. This, of course, has nothing to do with reality. The need for commitment and/or for sex is not gender specific and has more to do with the needs of a particular individual at any given time.
In order to justify this ridiculous approach, Atwood brings out the old chauvinistic myth that for women, sex is about intimacy, while for men it's about physical pleasure: "For us, having sex creates more intimacy. We wake up the next day wanting the relationship to move forward. If we’re brutally honest, we have to admit that we wake up the next day halfway in love and thinking of him as a boyfriend. This is nothing to be embarrassed about - it is perfectly natural and normal for a woman to feel this way! In fact, it is how we are wired." There is no proof whatsoever for these sweeping generalizations, except the vague and baseless declarations about being "wired" a certain way. And we all know how stupid such statements are.
It's strange to me that Atwood never stops to think how insulting such a position is to women. She believes that we are such simple, one-dimensional creatures that in order to achieve intimacy with us and make us fall in love, all you need to do is get between our legs. Our souls are located inside our vaginas, so it's very easy to get inside them. Men, on the other hand, are much more complex. It's not enough to sleep with them to achieve intimacy or reach their feelings. I can understand why some male chauvinist would want to promote this vision of women. But a woman? It's mindboggling. 

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Would it be more correct if instead of "wired" she used something like "educated/programmed/brainwashed by the society"?

Also, concerning situation in question, it is clear to me from the letter that this woman expected some commitment from her man even before Atwood's advise. I do not know if that expectation was a result of having sex, or she just expected commitment at that stage of a relationship, but my point is - it was not Atwood who installed such expectation into her.
In that sense Atwood's ideas may be chauvinistic, but she correctly describes the attitudes present in significant fraction of population, and gives advise based on this understanding. Yes, that advise may backfire. But would those women ask Atwood for advise if she was known for trying to reeducate those women Clarissa way? :) :) My point is - what is chicken and what is the egg here?
V.

Clarissa said...

First of all, "wired" means something that cannot be changed because it's the way you are born. So, there is a huge difference here.

Also, of course there are women who think sex should equal commitment, but there are just as many men who believe that too. Atwood tries to present women as exclusively pathetic. And it's not true. This is a non-gender-specific thing. The number of men and women who think this way is exactly the same.

If only she were to remove gender from this whole stupid discourse, I wouldn't mind. Then, her books would just be limited to people who are terrible in bed, and I wouldnn't care. But she insults women, that's waht annoys me.

Clarissa said...

Also: this is not about "being brainwashed by society" as much as simply being bad in bed in knowing it.

Anonymous said...

I agree with your comment on "wired" - "wired" implies biological, rather than cultural, origins of the phenomenon.
And it does not seem to me she insults (but her clients are not insulted, obviously) only women; she has a paragraph there on the way men interpret whole that situation.
V.

Clarissa said...

I meant she insults people like by generalizing and saying "all women are like this." Of course, idiots who buy and follow her books must have no self-esteem to buy this.

And, of course, the patriarchal worldview is equally repressive and offensive to men and women.

Nina Atwood said...

Hi Clarissa,

First, I appreciate your efforts to comment on my book and teachings. But you need to learn how to quote accurately when you critique. Regarding the advice to put off sex until you have a real relationship, if you had read more, you would have seen that I do explain in great detail why this is a wise strategy for women to follow.

Sexual compatibility is not determined by having intercourse with someone. Plenty of couples have great sex during courtship (I'm not opposed to that, by the way), yet discover later that they have completely different ideas about sexuality. If you study human sexuality, you find that there are multiple factors - including beliefs and attitudes about sex, hormone levels, family of origin issues, and more than I can name here - that influence long-term sexual compatibility. It is naive to believe that by having sex with a guy you know how compatible you will be in the long run.

It is also true that you can make discoveries about chemistry with a guy without having sex with him, and your odds of determining sexual compatibility are just about as good as the odds of discovering it through having sex. But the real issue here is the downfall of women's overall happiness by buying into the notion that it is empowering to have sex with men you don't know well and who are not invested in you emotionally. It just doesn't work.

Yes, men and women are wired differently; and by that I don't mean "hard wired." Recent developments in neuroscience have clearly shown that our brains are far more plastic than previously believed; we have the ability to form new neural pathways, and thus new thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors, throughout the lifespan.

What I mean by "wired" is that our basic biochemistry is different; men are dominated by testosterone, and women are dominated by estrogen. Thousands of studies have now documented the behavioral differences that stem out of those differences, including the role of oxytocin in pair bonding for women.

Both men and women bond through sex; but women tend to do so much more quickly. Women do not email me and tell me how powerful they felt after having casual sex with a truly attractive guy. Women do email me by the hundreds and complain about the lack of reciprocal love and commitment from guys they slept with on the first, second, or third date.

As for your assertion that according to me, "a woman has to trade sex for commitment and obligation," that is untrue. You won't find any actual quote by me like that because it's not what I believe. I don't use the word "obligated" because the last thing I think any woman wants is a man who is with her out of duty and obligation.

Commitment, however, is something that I believe both men and women desire in a loving relationship. No, I don't advocate that you hold out your sexuality as a token to be traded for the man's love and commitment. Ick. Instead, I advocate that men and women spend time getting to know one another, discovering whether or not they share the same values, want the same basic things out of life and out of a relationship, before they become sexual together.

My husband and the male CEOs I coach would find it hilarious that you've dubbed me "chauvinistic." I'm one of the most pro-feminist women in my social and business circles; it's actually a passion of mine - helping women understand the true source of empowerment and tap into it. That, of course, is knowing yourself and what you want; pursuing your dreams unabashedly, and not settling for crumbs. If what you want is a loving relationshp with a good guy, then go about it in a smart way.

Pace your relationships while you discover whether or not he is a good guy with good values; put off sex until you are fairly confident that he may be the one and that he feels the same way about you. Value YOU far more than any man you may love.

Clarissa said...

Dear Nina Atwood:

thank you for taking the time to comment.

There are several things that surprise me (to put it mildly) in your understanding of sex.

You say: "Women do not email me and tell me how powerful they felt after having casual sex with a truly attractive guy." Well, it's obvious that women who enjoy sex for its own sake would have no need to write to you, knowing of your attitude towards it. I am such a woman and I would never inform you of that knowing that it's kind of useless.

Now, the purpose of sex, causal or otherwise, is not to feel "powerful." It shocks me that you wouldn't realize that the ONLY healthy purpose of sex is pleasure. Not bonding, not a relationship, not feeling powerful, but pure physical pleasure. That's it. Anything else is, in my opinion, deeply unhealthy.

"f you study human sexuality, you find that there are multiple factors - including beliefs and attitudes about sex, hormone levels, family of origin issues, and more than I can name here - that influence long-term sexual compatibility."

-Nobody in their right mind would disagree with this statement of yours. However, putting off sex in order to remove this danger is an extremely self-defeating and unproductive strategy to follow. These are the dangers that you can never hope to avoid. And that's ok. It's part of human existence. Things may last or they may end. And that's fine. We should all accept the possibility that any relationship may end at any time. Then we won't need such weird strategies as putting off sex and having "shopping conversations" (another one of your strategies) to alleviate this fear.

Clarissa said...

"Thousands of studies have now documented the behavioral differences that stem out of those differences, including the role of oxytocin in pair bonding for women."

-If that were true, then I and all of my female friends and relatives would not be considered women. I don't feel emotionally involved after sex, I don't feel "almost in love". To get truly intimate with me a man has to work long and hard (as much and as long as I have to work at being intimate with him. ) The men I have dated and I have been equally complex creatures. And having sex on a first, second or third date (and even starting to live together on a second date, as with my current partner) has never been in the way of a great relationship.

"Women do email me by the hundreds and complain about the lack of reciprocal love and commitment from guys they slept with on the first, second, or third date."

-I think that a woman (or a man, because I've met a lot of men like that) who expects love and commitment on a second date is unhealthy. Why would any one even want that from a person you hardly know? Do these people value themselves so low that they are ready to grant their commitment and love to a total stranger? It's mindboggling.

"Instead, I advocate that men and women spend time getting to know one another, discovering whether or not they share the same values, want the same basic things out of life and out of a relationship, before they become sexual together."

-Can you envision a situation where people don't want a relationship or a commitment? They just want sex? That happens a lot, so there's no need of learning about anybody's "values" for that.

"My husband and the male CEOs I coach would find it hilarious that you've dubbed me "chauvinistic.""

-I'm glad they like you so much. :-) However, I think that female opinion is more significant in figuring out if someone is a chauvinist.

"Pace your relationships while you discover whether or not he is a good guy with good values; put off sex until you are fairly confident that he may be the one and that he feels the same way about you. Value YOU far more than any man you may love."

-I'm grateful for the advice, of course, but I can never find it useful. As I have said, with the man who is now the love of my live we started practically living (and obviously also having sex) together on a second date. And it never got in a way of us establishing a very profound, loving, committed relationship.

Paula S said...

While I love the banter back and forth between the two ladies, doesn't it really just boil down to two different opinions? Neither one person is completely right or wrong. They just both feel very strongly about their points of view and that's okay. I can see good points and bad points in both of their opinions. So what?

Clarissa said...

I'm sorry, Paula S., but these two opinions cannot coexist. You either believe that a woman's soul is located in her vagina, while a man's soul is not located in his penis, or you don't. I don't see any possible compromise here.

Anonymous said...

Nina Atwood,
Do you believe "commitment" is a purely biological construct or a cultural one? Because if it is cultural, then it is the culture which tells one what meaning to attribute to various sensations originating from changes in estrogen or oxytocin levels, etc, and how to translate these objective biological facts into such subjective things as "wish for commitment". Positive correlations you were referring to are probably present, but they do not indicate that one is the cause of the other. In fact both having certain levels of certain hormones and being conditioned into believing certain things about relationship are both effects/consequences of being female in existing culture.

In my opinion it is culture, not hormones, which conditions different genders (I am talking statistically here, Clarissa, please do not accuse me of overgeneralizing) to attribute different meanings to sex in general, as well as sex on the first/second/third date, to what is "too early", and to what constitutes the relationship between sex and commitment.

I am sorry, but your advise works for people who just follow the cultural patterns, and as long as they just want to find a partner with the same pattern as theirs without giving it much thought. There is no logical explanation why one should continue playing this particular game other than that the majority is playing it and is too busy to stop and think of why exactly they are doing it.
V.

Clarissa said...

"these objective biological facts"

-I have to say that there has been no data whatsoever that these "objective" factors have any significant influence. They have never been proven to override cultural conditioning, etc.

I also have to add that there are exactly as many men as there are women who look for commitment on a first date. Even when there has been no sex or anything. It's simply not a gender-specific thing.

Anonymous said...

I love Nina's books. I think they have really good advice. I LIKE my physical relationship to match my level of commitment to someone. We're mammals and we ARE wired to connect and sex is a major way to connect.

Its just foolish to have sex with someone with the HOPE that sex alone will make them like you. Nina is telling people some common sense, but still useful, information.

Clarissa said...

Normal people don't have sex so that some one would like them. They have sex in order to have an orgasm.

Sex as a way to connect is completely neurotic. No wonder people are so repressed in this country if such medieval beliefs still abound.

Clarissa said...

The funny things is that the silly people who buy this junk keep reading and memorizing these books, and still have no personal life to speak of. You'd think that would teach them something eventually. But no such luck.