Poly, Weakly: Episode 377 (Minx gets committed?)

-She and LG start by announcing that they're podcasting in bed and naked.  Lunch just loosened itself and started up my GI tract.
-She said she wanted to share their vows, but I swear to G_d it sounded like she said she wanted to share their vowels, which made me think of LG in a Vanna White
wig.  Lunch is well into the esophagus now.
-CM tells us that she hasn't moved in with LG to form a poly kinky group household because of pet allergy issues.  Seriously?  How 'bout LG's long-suffering wife
or the fact that CM is so vanilla and terrified of committment and that she thinks that BDSM stands for Barely Does Serial Monogamy?
-She called his dick a "weewee".  That ain't a ringing endorsement of a horsecock.  I'm picturing him holding his dick to pee with one hand and getting three fingers wet.
-I'm seriously only 8 minutes in?
-He's talking about "bathroom moments"; I'm so bored, I'm wishing it was what it sounded like. FML.
-CM: (referencing church) "I like saying the same thing over and over".  We have 377 episodes that attest.
-She said that a sparkly ring was a personal goal.
-She also said "1920s Edwardian style".  While inaccurate as hell, it was still one of the lesser dumb statements
-She was surprised that it took him 2 hours to write out their vows into a book.  Clearly, She's never read the text to the Magic cards from his time at Wizards of the Coast.
-His arm was "all out of shape" the next day.  Martial artist Barney Fife?
-Their ceremony included the line, "making a public declaration of our intent to continue mingling our lives"  Wow.  That's like posting your daily to-do list to tumblr, but less public.
-L, you're either really strong to keep from retching constantly, or you've got a whole separate universe where your conscious mind goes.
-I can't tell if LG is as dumb as he sounds, or sounds smarter than he is.
-18 minutes?  No fuckin' way.  This is like a Terrence Malik film festival.
-Okay, now we have the audio of the hand-fasting as officiated by L.
-Ooh, in calling CM her metamor, L sounds like she choked on something.  Seriously, she could barely get the word out.  Run, woman!
-CM: "...when I first saw you, before I even met you, you made me laugh, you made me cringe, and you made me cry,..."  Dude, she just said she laughed at you and found you
-repulsive.  I didn't hear L step in to counter the claim.
-Oh shit, she just just took a dump on her relationship with Greydancer.
-She just agreed to keep at the relationship until it is no longer good for her, him, and anyone who joins it.  No love for L, huh?
-Why does his reading of his vows sound so much like a Dungeon Master reading the description of the Crypt of Elemental Evil?
-Wait, he said CM was the best bet he never paid, and then L says, "I paid." Uh, yeah, honesty in poly, eh?
-L just told CM to "take (her) leftovers".  I guess the honesty in poly thing wasn't a joke. L, you rock!
-Minx calls out a donation while whining about the "dry spell" and reminding us that even the $1.99 ones count.  So she's cheap, but wishes she wasn't.  Aren't we all?
-Episode overall?  Lost two IQ points(INT) and three sanity points (SAN).  Have the DM roll on the neurosis table.

"Couple Privilege" is a Bullshit Concept

There's been a trend in the last several years, in mainstream polyamorous culture – be it the most popular blogs, or podcasts, that is increasingly dogmatic – that there's a “right way” and a “wrong way” to do polyamory. This dogma is also increasingly restrictive and as a result, exclusionary. A lot of this dogma started out as what was actually very good advice on how to build successful poly relationships based on the kind of poly relationships the advice-givers themselves engage in, and what they personally need and desire in relationships. Which is great – for them. It's become a huge problem in the community for those who fall outside that particular box.

At it's heart, polyamory simply refers to the idea that people can have romantic relationships with more than one person at a time. This basic premise leads to a nearly infinite number of different relationship models, from the dreaded polyfi triad of the “unicorn hunters” (in which a preexisting couple attempt to find a bisexual woman to join their and only their relationship) to a completely open structure of any number of people with almost no rules or guidelines allowed and everything inbetween. What's been happening, however, is that anything that resembles the triad model is increasingly seen as the “wrong” kind of poly, and countless articles and podcasts are focused on trying to convince preexisting couples to move to practicing poly in as open and rule-free a way possible. To resist this, the mainstream poly culture says, is an exercise in the laughable notion of “couple privilege”

Lately there's a concept that's been gaining a lot of ground in what I'll just refer to as “mainstream polyamorous culture” as defined by the most popular and well-read blogs, articles, and forums, and most-listened to podcasts. This insidious injustice is referred to as “couple privilege.”

“Privilege” is a concept that comes out of what's generally referred to as the social justice community, and was specifically a concept first used in terms of how racism in the United States gives unearned, hidden privileges to white people, leaving people of color at a disadvantage that white people often don't realize or understand. The concept was quickly used by feminists, who coined “male privilege” and gay activists, who coined the term “straight privilege.” It then continued to expand in usage in social justice circles, with “cis privilege”, “passing privilege”, “neurotypical privilege” “thin privilege” and other uses, some of them appropriate and necessary, others misplaced.

The basis of the privilege concept is oppression. In the U.S., people of color experience oppression, and lack privilege based on the color of their skin and/or race. (This isn't really up for debate here at SoT). Women experience oppression in relation to men, who automatically receive male privilege on the basis of their gender. Privileges and oppressions intersect – a white woman does not receive male privilege, but she is granted white privilege.

“Couple privilege” doesn't work as a concept. You are not born as a couple. You are not guaranteed to remain a couple for the rest of your life. Being in a couple is a conscious choice. A gay person may not be out, but they still are not recipients of straight privilege, because the nature of anti-gay bigotry affects their internal sense of self, their ability to be out in the first place is a decision that largely results from anti-gay oppression. The analogy doesn't work. Coupledom, as a choice people make, doesn't function in a similar way at all to inborn traits that lead people to be privileged or oppressed.

One of the problems with the popularization of social justice ideas and lingo outside of the rigorous academic setting in which it originated is that complex concepts are often reduced to simplistic, black and white thinking by people who don't have a good understanding of the basics behind how oppression and privilege function. Anything that confers social, legal, or other benefits on a group is seen as a privilege, and any negatives that result from being part of a group is thereby explicitly or implicitly understood to be an oppression – when often it's not.

For instance: I completely agree with the idea, behind couple privilege, that “our” (U.S., western, etc) society encourages couple-based relationships. For that matter, so do the vast majority of other cultures and religions. Most societies have expectations that a coupled relationship – preferably legally and/or religiously sanctioned, with children resulting from the union, until someone in the relationship dies – is what everyone should aspire to. It's just expected. It's a clear socio-cultural norm.

Furthermore, being in a couple confers all kinds of benefits on the people in the relationship. Social approval, pooling of resources, and if legally sanctioned, a vast number of economic and social benefits. There is a reason, after all, why same-sex couples want marriage rights.

Based on that, it seems reasonable to say that couples are privileged. And if the people using the term “couple privilege” were basing their arguments on these clear social benefits, I'd be more inclined to take the term seriously, although even with this model there are still problems. Most legitimate uses of the privilege term as described above are based on inherent truths about yourself that you cannot change – your race/ethnicity, your sexual orientation, your gender (understanding that most trans people say they were always the gender they identify with – the issue of non-binary trans people is beyond the scope of this post). Whereas couplehood is far more complex and based more in choice than any of these other identifiers. Almost anyone can choose to be part of a couple, if coupledom is what they seek. (Whether they can find the ideal partner is another matter, but it is not difficult for almost anyone to find another lonely soul with low expectations who wants to be in a relationship. Think of some of the most awful people you know who happen to be married.)

If one voluntarily chooses not to be in a relationship – whether that's because they don't enjoy being part of a couple, or they are having trouble finding a partner that meets their standards – they are still choosing to be single, at least for the time being. There's also the reality that most people are part of a couple at some points during their life. From my point of view, the concept of privilege doesn't work well when it's an attribute that is something nearly everyone on the planet goes through, or is a result of choice. (This is also why I don't buy into the idea of “adult privilege” with regards to children/teenagers as an oppressed group, or “youth privilege” with regards to older people. There are severe disadvantages in various societies with being young, or old – and often legal issues that should be advocated for these groups. That doesn't mean they fit the oppression model.)

But I'm willing to grant that if a person is using the term “couple privilege” to refer exclusively to the important, wide-ranging benefits that couples receive legally, economically, and socially from the culture at large that my disagreement with the concept does rest almost entirely on the semantic argument between “advantages” and “privileges” and a healthy debate could follow.

But no. If you read the definitions and descriptions of couple privilege that are routinely linked to and discussed in the poly community, it becomes clear that the majority of it is based instead on relationship dynamics. Which is a preposterous misunderstanding of the concept of privilege.

“Couple privilege” pushers argue from two fronts: the emotional/practical benefits that couples receive versus single people, and specifically within polyamory, the ways that couples can supposedly use their “couple privilege” in placing the needs of their relationship above that of other partners.

Privilege/oppression is a concept that functions on large dynamics – things that affect an entire culture/society. Couple privilege pushers use the term almost exclusively to refer to things that affect individuals, and confusingly throw in a few examples of the larger disadvantages non-couples face in society as justification for complaints that at their heart, are based entirely on individualistic dynamics.

From the couple vs. single aspect of “couple privilege”, many people have made lists of what privileges couples receive that single people do not. Unlike valid concepts of privilege which rest on irrational, unfair bigotry against a particular group, much of the “privileges” put forth are simple issues based in practicality that has little to nothing to do with seeing singles as an inferior class of people. Examples include the idea that package travel deals are based on double occupancy and singles have to pay more – despite the fact that my single mother takes advantage of such deals for “couples” by traveling with a friend. Or the idea that larger living spaces are afforded to couples who can pool resources, ignoring that groups of people have been choosing to live together to afford nicer places by pooling their resources since forever. Another one, laughably, was the fact that single people may be relegated to sleeping on a cot when visiting family for the holidays, because the bedrooms are afforded to couples. The idea that this family arrangement is based on “oppression” is so ridiculous that I shouldn't have to even mention it, but it makes sense that if two people are willing to share a bed, they will get to sleep in that space to make more room for more people! The minor inconveniences that singles face under these situations are not benefits that only couples can enjoy, but based entirely in practical space concerns.

The other issue put forth by the couples versus singles model are emotional. Being part of a couple means you have someone to rely on for emotional support, to back you up in an argument, to take care of you when you're sick. But again, none of these functions are or should be relegated to romantic couples only. Friends and family can fulfill nearly all of these emotional roles, if the author had bothered to cultivate and treat non-romantic/sexual relationships as seriously as romantic/sexual ones.

It's also worth noting that these couple privilege checklists don't assess the many downsides of being part of a couple. If you don't believe me, stay tuned for our single privilege checklist.

Within specifically the polyamorous concept of couple privilege, the same individualistic error is applied. In this context, “couple privilege”, generally, refers to any action that results from the couple privileging their relationship above any other romantic/sexual relationships. You can argue that this is a bad or even “wrong” way to do polyamory (which I disagree with but that's a matter for another post) but it's not privilege as is understood within a social justice context. All a single poly person has to do to avoid couple privilege is to not enter into relationships with couples! A woman can't escape sexism, even if she doesn't date men, and a Black person can't escape racism, even if they don't socialize with white people. Real oppression is not something you can escape via a simple choice, but couple privilege, as defined by polyamorous people, can simply be avoided. Problem solved!

I hope you made it through this rather pedantic wall of text. I apologize for the dryness of this post, but when dealing with social justice concepts I prefer to err on the side of boring clarity rather than entertaining snark. Rest assured that my next post, which will explore in greater detail the problems with anti-couple thought in modern poly culture, will be a lot more fun, both for me to write and for you to read.  

Poly, Weakly: Episode 376 (What's a sociopath? I'll show you in less than 15 minutes)

-It's only 14 minutes long.  Thank you, Jesus!  Wait, LG has Jesus hair. Hmmm.
-Hey guys, they're getting hand-fasted in Costa Rica.  It's in Costa Rica!
-Letter from a secondary who's partner's wife is dying and wants the secondary to bow out.  CM says she's been in this situation before.  I spit take before she can clarify that it's
just like when Graydancer's wife wanted her to keep her filthy whore hands of of their family silverware (worded based on the tone used.  She may have meant dirty homewrecker paws.
Just editorializing).  Point Minx.
-According to LG, anyone else's opinion "including the wife's, are only worth so much".  Listen close and you can actually hear the sound of CM's elusive conscience knocking.  Seriously,
listen to minute 6:10.  You can hear her sharp intake of breath.
-Whew, crisis narrowly averted.  CM compares this to her being willing to step in recently to fuck LG when his wife was feeling ill.  Minx, I've got the Nobel committee on the phone!  Their
sociopathy-based award has its first nominee.
-Nine minutes in.  Minx says LG just said something wise.  He wisely agrees with that assessment. The wisdom bursts from this podcast like a moist fart.
-The Happy Poly Moment has adults in tribes eating pizza while wearing footie pajamas.  Apparently, no ghost stories were told.  Happy Poly Moment my ass.
-Hey guys, they're getting hand-fisted on the beach in Costa Rica!  It's in Costa Rica!  Apparently this is the show's new tagline.  It's still worlds better than "It's not all about the
sex".
-Another minute of this episode and I would have been test-fitting my mouth for a .45.  Seriously.  I've done three in one night.  Put me down like a gimped racehorse.

Poly, Weakly: Episode 375 (Mommy, where'd the winter coat money go?)

-LG claims he used to make adult videos and that resulted in angry viewer mail.  Who the fuck writes in to people in porn? "Dear Ms. Hartley, regarding your last double anal scene, I
feel that you're interactions with your fellow thespians rang hollow..."
-Also, LG in porn.  Thank G-d I'm drinking and therefore numb to the effects of those words.  Sobriety, this is why we cannot meet.
-CM announces that she's doing something different this week by turning the light on her relationship.  She turns the spotlight on herself.  Bask in it, folks.  It ain't coming around
again soon.  Oh, there it is.  And again.  Look kids, Big Ben!
-Hey guys, they're getting hand-fasted in Costa Rica.
-LG just compared himself to Henry V.  They're both pale and bearded, I guess.  Point LG?
-They're doing this on the beach.  In Costa Rica.  With friends.  "Oh, and L, of course."  That really was the line, no BS.  Also, no homo, as I've seen LG's pictures.
-Apparently L didn't even pretend to give a shit.  L has apparently agreed to tie them together.  Take my husband; please!
-They talk about searching for rings.  My level of give-a-shit reached the point where I was ready to tie their hands together as well.
-Even the ring designer told them to fuck off and just go buy an antique. CM appreciated that LG didn't care about her ring choice.  How considerate.
-LG congratulates himself for being so cool about the ring shopping thing.
-CM congratulates LG for being so cool about the ring shopping.
-LG concurs with CM's praise of him in the ring shopping.  He likes her liking him.  Does this count as a triad?  Does this count as a Happy Poly Moment?  Either way, I'm bored.
-Blah blah; something from Sweden about polys.  Fuck it.  Someone gave the podcast $150! Take that, Scandinavia!  Minx get's excited about this in the way she only gets about
donations.  Meanwhile, the donor's kids ask if they'll be getting the reduced-price school lunches next year as well.
-Yeah, it just got dark.

Poly, Weakly: Episode 374 (Mistakes couples make when getting into poly: this episode could be one of them)

-I'm going into this knowing it's going to be rough.  I'm doing back-to-back episodes today.  Pray for me.
-This is an episode about mistakes couples make when opening up.  How would CM know?  Seriously?
-Someone named Marcia Baczynski is talking about her educating people venturing into poly.  She also did something with "Cuddle Party" in the name.  Salt grains applied.
-Marcia has some good points to make, but seriously, what are her bona fides beyond an e-book and cuddle parties?  Oh, she has a degree in PR.  Well, the poly community
could use a PR sense.  And a stylist.  No more fedoras and Michael Bolton hair.
-Tristan Taormino's name gets dropped on poly podcasts like Wil Wheaton's at a D&D convention.
-Fuck.  Twenty-one minutes in and I give up.  I've always been able to power through before, but I just see this as 55% of the way into a banal, taupe-colored hell.  The
final straw was her kissing up to CM.  Oh you're right.  No you're right.  They blow each other into one big smug ouroboros.
-Jesus, it's minute 23 and I'm still here.  Why do I keep hurting myself?  Is it so I can feel?
-They were just saying that mistake number four is that people feel like they have to be the perfect poly partner, even when they're not feeling it.  Then it pivots to
something about a martyr complex, CM thinks that some of her partners couldn't do poly, unlike her.  Couldn't hear the dialog clearly, as the audio went smug.
- A self-taught life coach who charges a grand for cuddle therapy talking with a self-taught social media consultant about how people should do relationships.  We've reached bullshit
critical mass.  A giant imploding brown star.  Midway through this, words are losing meaning.  It just became babble.  As someone who once had his teeth viciously stomped into a curb by
an angry Texas cop, this ranks only slightly lower among life experiences I'd prefer not to repeat.  What I'm saying is, if this podcast was any longer, I'd be shouting, "Bring it on,
Trooper Butterfield!"
-CM closes by panhandling.  Why leave a crumb of dignity on the table?  I say this while listening to this podcast so I can post this to a blog that focuses way too much on this. FML.

Poly, Weakly: Episode 373 (They carried her on their shoulders; you should have seen it)

-CM tries to sex-up the word "blow-out"; the result is actually less sexy that a straight line reading.
-CM is podcasting from bed and then feels the need to tell us that it's less sexy than it sounds.  How does she do that?
-"Coming down the pipe," she said.  She could read erotica and it would sound like software source code being read through a loudspeaker by Ben Stein.
-She tells us that she will only take sponsorships that help the listeners.  Why take money unless it helps people?  Unless it's just panhandling.  That's still cool, right?  Right.
-She's doing this for us, who enable her con trips with donations.  Way to send conflicting messages, Minx.
-"We, activists".  There goes another term stripped of all meaning.
-Minx used to teach communications?  I can only picture her in a 70s community college classroom, wearing all denim and teaching CB etiquette.  Am I the only one?  Whatever,
liars.
-At 10:16, "Damn straight, take their money!"  Ladies and genitals, we have a new show tagline.
-Minx, when you have to say, "and this is funny," it's not. Ever.
-And this is where the podcast gets interesting!  See what I did there?
-She attended a lecture on monetizing talking and writing about sex.  Minx by way of Archer's Pam Poovey, "Sploosh!"
-Oh, it's not her goal at all, she laboriously explains, but man-oh-man did this lecture have some great stuff and yes, she took copious notes.
-"If your audience wants you to keep coming on the face, then keep coming on the face,"  so yes, audience she's been coming on your face.
for nearly 400 episodes.  It's empowering!?  No, that explanation always rang hollow, even here.
-She relays some really good information regarding assumptions about sex workers.  I wish I had heard the original lecture.  Seriously.
-Minx participated in an event where they tell stories on stage about sex, no notes.  She told a story about anal sex.  Okay.  Turns out it got the most riotous
laughter of anything she has ever done.  The crowd probably foisted her on their shoulders and carried her out like Rudy.  Oh, and she forgot to record it.
-The callers.  Oh sweet Jebus, one of them sounds way too much like my father-in-law.  Just as long-winded.  Oh never mind, he has a job.  Crisis averted.

Poly, Weakly: Episode 372 (Swingers explain non-monogamy to Minx)

-The Swingset people are remarkably articulate.  It throws a stark contrast on the maturity difference between the voices of the poly community and those
of the dirty swingers CM dislikes so much.
-They spend 5 minutes explaining how close swinging is to poly, even two sides of the same coin, and then CM asks if they're trying to bring the
different communities together.
-Minute 9, CM manages to be a real ass.  She's not open or a swinger so why does she need their community?  They talk about voting blocks and
collective power, and CM seems lost beyond the concept of her clique.
-He makes a good point that swinger-open-poly needs to band together like LGBT.  Minx's snort almost sounds like feedback.
-Is CM not a swinger?  She hasn't pointed it out in a while.  Oh wait.  Nevermind.  Could it be clearer that she looks down on it?
-"Don't dom me," CM tells a joke and it's actually funny.
-Oh shit, Cooper calls out poly people for saying casual sex is icky.  Sadly, it whooshed over CM's head.
-OFFS, she's calling out donations again.  She always brings up the amount.  Damn it's vulgar.
-Hundreds of thousands of people helped?  Seriously?  If only the UN had her efficacy.

Poly, Weakly: Episode 371 (I can't finish this now. It is too shit to deal with)

-Hey there's a new conference and the podcast gets money for it.  Not directly said, but you know, it's the thought of money that counts.
-Oh shit, there are classes oriented toward secondaries and talking to metamors.  Wait, a polyamory bootcamp?  Seriously?  Do they break fingers too?  Please!
-Wooo! the conference includes poly speed dating, also known as speed dating.  Still stupid.
-LG is back...yay...
-a letter from some whose short-lived relationship was failing. Oh fuck.  I don't care.  I really don't.  This podcast just makes me weep.

Romney the verb

Romney: v.
1. To defecate in terror.

As in: When faced with the possibility of a GOP president, I romneyed in my pants.

Asexuals and the Bush Era

Sorry for the lack of updates.  I have been taken in by the tractor beam known as Tumblr, where one doesn't have to construct coherent, well-reasoned posts, or use grammar, but can engage in pointless pissing matches with obnoxious modern identity politic groups.

Like asexuals!  But fear not, I am not here to shit on asexuals.  At least, not exactly.  But during a Tumblr-inspired discussion between the boy and I the other night, two things occurred to us.

a) Asexuality, as an identity, is a relatively new phenomenon, and
b) The vast majority of people who identify as asexual or as part of asexual culture are young - under 25.  I'd say anecdotally they bulk tend to skew even younger, teens through early twenties.

I'm not pulling this shit out of my ass.  The asexual community has done (non-scientific) surveys.  The results are actually quite fascinating, particularly if you're a research nerd like me.  A 2008 survey, for instance,  showed the mean birth year of aces as 1981 and the mode (largest grouping in respondents) was 1987, with a standard deviation of about 10 years.  The population was only 288, so for that small a population those slightly wonky results are expected, but it did tend to show that aces were generally young-ish, with some very far outliers on the older side of things, which makes the mean not a particularly useful descriptor of the actual ages of most respondents.

This year's survey creates an even more interesting picture.  Within 3 years, the number of respondents has increased by more than a factor of ten.  So the asexual community is clearly growing at an incredible rate.  Even more fascinating, it's getting much younger.  76.2% of the respondents are currently between the ages of 16 and 25.  That is an incredibly young group.

(Speaking of, the compilers of this "research" used fucking pie charts to represent questions that were marked "check all that apply."  That is pretty much the worst thing anyone has ever done.)

I go through this boring data to make just one point: the vast majority of asexuals are not of my generation, but what is loosely called "Generation Y" or "Echo boomers."  These are people who were in elementary school and middle school during the Bush years, as opposed to the boy and myself, who were teenagers and young adults in the 90's.  The 1990's were a halcyon time of riot grrrls, zines, interesting pop music, and of course, sex-positivity.  I may have a bit of the rose-colored glow about this era that most people do when speaking of when they came of age, obviously.  But the 1990s were obviously very different from the 2000s politically, pop-culturally, and sexually.

It made me wonder if a lot of my disconnect with the asexual movement has to do with not understanding what it would be like to grow up and come of age sexually when the government in control in the U.S. had an extremely sex-negative, homophobic agenda.  Abortion rights were being stripped away left and right.  Abstinence education became the only kind of sex education in many public schools.  The administration was openly hostile to GLBT people, and DOMA passed.  I grew up with Madonna letting her freak flag fly, but Gen Y kids grew up with Brittney Spears yammering on about waiting til marriage.

In the 2000's, the overall political media landscape with regard to sex shifted.  While AIDS was a big deal in the '90's, no doubt, the focus was on teaching young people how to protect themselves and still enjoy sex.  In the 2000's a major cultural backlash occurred, with the safety message turning into blatant fear-mongering.  And with public health services for STI testing and abortion being eradicated, being sexually active suddenly had a lot more consequences for many teens.  It's not hard to see how sex might have seemed, well, scary.

Now I know many asexuals will say their asexuality is an inborn trait and that they aren't scared of sex, but simply lack sexual attraction.  And I'm sure that is true for many.  But societal messages also have a huge impact on how people interact with and define their sexuality.  The standard liberal view now is that sexual orientation is something you're "born with" yet a far greater percentage of the population identifies as GLB now than in, say, the 1950's.  And it's not because humans went through some micro-evolutionary process where there's just more gayness.

So you take the reality of growing up in a very sex-negative culture where sex has a lot of risks and couple that with the popularization of the Internet, which has created thousands of sub-groups and identities that barely existed before but can now connect and communicate, and it's not at all surprising that asexuals suddenly seem to be everywhere.

If the U.S. suddenly took a turn towards utopia and sex-negativity in culture was eradicated, I am sure there would still be plenty of people who identify as ace.  But I don't think that we can discount the ways in which the Bush-era may have affected Generation Y and how they view sex as a result, either.