I was pretty nerdy in my youth—unlike now, of course—and so my parents confronted the issue of sexuality with me by doing the obviously right thing: They handed me a four-volume encyclopedia on the subject and told me to read up.
I wish I could remember the name of the thing, but alas I don't. A lot of it was stuff that was boring to me at the time, like the details of reproduction. I skimmed it but didn't really care a lot about the details. I never really resonated to biology—it always seemed messy and imprecise.
There was a section on dating, though, and I read through that pretty thoroughly in case it had any useful tips. It did. It's funny the kinds of things that stick with you over the years, but this did because of the practical and specific nature of it. It defined the confusing term “fresh” (a sort of interjection that was supposed to get uttered just before you got slapped in some mysterious circumstances) in the only detailed, serious way I've ever seen anyone try to define it. I checked the dictionary just now and it merely says very vague things like these:
15. informal forward or presumptuous
Random House Dictionary15. Informal Bold and saucy; impudent
The American Heritage ® Dictionary12. improperly forward or bold; “don't be fresh with me”;
WordNet® 3.0
This encyclopedia, instead of offering just a word or two, offered a full description of how things were supposed to work and why the word was significant. It was highly specific in a way that I doubt people will readily agree with—many will quibble that the numbers are arbitrary, and I suppose they are. But I was able to read past that and to get the essence of what it was getting at.
The article just came straight out and said that it was permissible for a boy to try to kiss a girl on the second date and to try “petting” on the eighth date. I have no idea where they got these numbers. They seemed arbitrary and unmotivated to me, and I knew even at the age of 11 or 12 when I read this that they were probably not universally agreed upon. But the point was that there was some such number. What was interesting was that the article was very clear on the notion that you had no entitlement to succeed in these things. It did not encourage you to be pushy. It didn't say that someone must submit. What it seemed to imply was that there was a time at which it was not out of bounds to think it might be proper.
So, as the article explained, it might be that a girl will kiss a boy on the first date, but he ought not try. The relationship is too fresh. After the first date, he may try, but she may still decline. Likewise, it might be that the girl would engage in petting on the eighth date, but maybe not. The relationship was too fresh before that to really consider the matter.
By the way, I'm recalling all of this from memory, but I don't recall it talking about discussing, only trying. It might be I was just reading selectively, but more likely they were just acknowledging the obvious truth that it's enough trouble having to be a bumbling adolescent without having to be articulate about what you're bumbling about.And that was a lot of dates out—I don't think I ever got to that many dates. I did count, though, even knowing that my date probably didn't have access to my encyclopedia and that all my counting was probably for nothing. I wasn't going to feel emboldened after that time, more likely just like I was timidly missing out. Being a kid is rough. It's a wonder any of us survives to adulthood.
Anyway, I think my encyclopedia's definition of this obscure word highlights an important detail that is often lost in a lot of dialog between the sexes at any age. Lessons in interpersonal communication rarely distinguish between the correctness of a bid for doing something and the entitlement to do something. This leads to the magical and unrealistic notion that people will “just know” when it's right, and that if either party tries something when it isn't “just known,” that's wrong.
Great emphasis is placed in our society on how important it is for men to respect a “no” answer from a woman. And I agree. But equally great emphasis should be placed on giving respect to the fact that there will be questions that, in due course, need asking, even if the answer will ultimately be “no.” Whether by word or by wordless bumbling deed, the mere asking of those questions at the proper time and without attempt to pressure is not disrespectful, and the need to ask them must be respected in the same way that the answer must. Respect between caring individuals goes in both ways.
If you got value from this post, please "rate" it.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
RomanticPoetess
Sandra Stephens
old new lefty
marytkelly
oaxacangringa
CoyoteOldStyle
Salon.com
Comments
"Equally great emphasis should be placed on giving respect othe fact that there will be questions that, in due course, need asking, even if the answer will ultimately be no."
We need to demonize NEITHER restraint NOR desire. They're two sides of the same coin; while it's incredibly important that people respect no, and politeness, and social boundaries, and propriety - you can't teach boys that *their* desire is something to shield the world/potential partners from, while expecting them to learn, along the way, that when a woman says "yes" - she's not somehow lessened by it.
And it's fairly insulting to potential partners to attempt to decide when *they* might be ready for whatever. Putting your cards on the table (not shoving them in someone's face, though) shows respect for your potential partner's ability to decide for him/herself what they're ready for.
But in all of the above, it's important to remember: grace when being rejected is a virtue; entitlement is a sin.
rated
There was no book, no talk for me. My mom was pretty naive on her wedding night and conceived me so I was pretty much on my own. Though, Catholic school set some guidelines about being a "good girl," not committing a mortal sin or having impure thoughts, etc...I eventually got around to all of it.
Mom and dad were a great example, however, on how a happily married couple treats one another. They never raised their voices to each other, always seemed to be in love by their affection and regard for one another, went out on a weekly date and had that special 2 week tropical vacation every year. They were my ideal of what I wanted in a relationship. Very hard act to follow.
The attraction (especially when young) is either there or not.
This is just me however, and I suspect that me is rarely everyone else. One much older lover once told me during a discussion that, "you may have been many things but you, were never, never, naive."
Such a burden for a young man, calculating numbers of dates, what can I touch, can I kiss her, sitting there with a throbbing hard on most likely. How do young men do it?
The Scandinavians have it right. They have demystified sexuality and children are encouraged to explore their sexuality together with the blessing of their parents, safely, with proper protections. They tend to be quite happy people and very orgasmic, I'm guessing those two are intrinsically related.
Form experience, I think Cartouch touched on something very important. Some dating is constructed on false expectations. There should always, without any question be mutual respect in any interaction and/or developing relationship. As far as dating, I am a non-believer......I had few in high school and college, always wanting instead to hang out with someone who was fun and/or interesting to be with. It was an organic process that evolved over many encounters, joint projects, group dinners, parties, and just having picnics and the like. Romance would grow out of friendship first. With LJ, my wife, we were best friends for a couple of years........long enough to have seen each other at their worst, the dark-side of each other, naturally expressed, in emotional disagreements, mistakes, and so on. When you know your boundaries with someone, it is easy to be with them......without fear and uncertainty. the test is when you can experience silence together, without the constant need for outside stimulation.
My first love was a Catholic boy who dated me for almost a year before trying to have actual intercourse with me. I don't think either woman or man would get that kind of patience from me now, but for that age 19-20 I think his timing was immaculate. (no pun intended)
Thanks for the smiles (and the cringes).
rated
I actually do wonder, though, how this affects the "now." I mean, dating in my late thirties is so different than dating as a teen. The people I'm pairing up with now have a whole long-entrenched set of norms that wouldn't have been an issue with the guys I would have been trying to date long ago (where we would have been from the same school, neighborhood, church, or whatever -- having mostly similar values, backgrounds, levels of experience). I mean, what if they hadn't read the book, and expected petting as soon as the 5th date!?
Rated for freshness.
Somewhere I hear Scott McKenzie singing ...
scupper, ouch!
JT, yeah, lots of opportunity for confusion for sure.
Duane, I'm not sure who this weird thing was intended for. Maybe just as a reference or for a class thing. Not for general audiences. But it was fine for me. Back then I was quite a reader and would devour almost anything put in front of me.
Karin, thanks for the kind words.
Also, it might be that relationships these days work faster than they used to, or maybe just for some people. It might be that the numbers cited in that encyclopedia were never right in the first place. I've actually heard more than one person claim that if they're going to sleep with someone, they usually do it on the first or second date, and that if it's gone on longer than that, they probably never will. The details will vary. But there will always be details and they will rarely be negotiated in advance. So one has to guess and hope and be sensitive, because that's what one would want in return.