A Single Girl's Guide to Casual Sex
» Erotic Technique
You'd think that "hooking up" was invented with the neologism. Sex without attachment has been around for millenia. Indeed many people view romance and I (and perhaps you) practice it as an invention of 11th century troubadors. Well if people are hooking-up in American it goes without saying they need a guide, a reference book to spell out the rules, help them evolve tactics and avoid that silly thing called sexual guilt.
Participants often call their hook-ups “friends with benefits”. They are a bit more than casual acquaintances but a lot less than a boyfriend or a girlfriend. You “hook up” with them, nothing more. You are free to string them along or hook up with somebody else at the same time. It is important not to “catch feelings” or fool yourself that you are in love.
'Hook-up’ gives US a cooler sex life
What the (self-interested) publisher says:
Accompanying the authors’ sardonic and sage advice is an array of entertaining and educational anecdotes from women who’ve hooked up and survived to share their enlightening tales. They shed light on such important issues as planning ahead (go easy on the alcohol—and the fiber), special engagements (celebrity screws; workplace whoopie), and the awkward moments after (the phone number exchange; breakfast in public). Featuring quizzes and checklists to gauge the reader’s casual sex readiness as well as glimpses into getting lucky from the male perspective, The Happy Hook-Up looks at commitment-free fun from a smart and empowering perspective.
Comments
Hi Richard
well, for my part I have never seen anything intrinsically wrong with one night stands, hooking up, fuck friendships, open polyamoury. and monogamy is sort of ok between consenting adults in private. but a bit seedy. ugh!
sorry should not be ranting on another persons blog, so I will stop there. and i do have lots of mono friends.
care to comment on my quotes from David Starkey
http://www.chicksdigjerks.blogspot.com/
my own comment is that I agree with him, that Love is not the soupiness of romance which has contaminated our understanding of love
while I am on. for me, well a one night stand would have to be poor sex for me not to want a second helping LOL! as soon as it becomes more than one night, there is no escaping emotional involvement. I learned perhaps to late that a friendship with a former secret paramour was a close friendship. Nothing wrong in that, except in close relationships we risk hurt and pain as well as joy. When we cease however to risk hurt and pain, we cease to be real.
not having read this book, my gut feeling is any counterblast against monogamous assumptions and the myth of romantic love is a wonderful thing, Hallelujah! HALLELUJAH! HALLELUJAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bluebell E.
Posted by: Bluebell Eikonoklastes | October 14, 2004 5:09 PM
Actually - we’ll call it my secret shame - I’m very monogamous. But I don’t advocate monogamy: it is a very complicated perversion. Far more than boot worship, another weakness of mine, say.
I do wish polyamoury had occurred to me when I was younger. I think it a very healthy ideal. Though it has never been clear how often that works out as well as one might hope.
But I had plenty of one-nighters. They were part of my maturing, growing up and escaping my upbringing, which was as sexually damning as possible. So glad I outgrew it.
Posted by: Richard | October 14, 2004 5:42 PM
Hi Richard
many thanks for your comment
I feel slightly misunderstood. Viz I don’t think there is anything wrong with being very mono per se. I do at the end of the day firmly believe in a sexual pluralism inclusive of celibacy and monogamy.
i would not go as far as to call it a perversion, sounds horrid. but yes, it is complex in my opinion.
boots as in items of footwear. I do like a lady with a sexy pair of boots
But I had plenty of one-nighters.
Ooo wish I had. well, like I say, for me one night stands can fulfil a certain need.
Yup
blessed be
Bluebell
Posted by: Bluebell Eikonoklastes | October 17, 2004 3:40 PM