In my
first post, I pointed out that we often have multiple sexual perspectives. They can converge and yield clarity. But they can also fog our vision. Kate Bolick's well-researched and entertaining essay in The Atlantic about the challenges of being a single woman in our culture illustrates this principle (see
"All the Single Ladies"). Bolick is on target when she finally arrives at her main thesis: Women all too easily internalize culturally-imposed messages that teach them that singleness is a stigma and that the lion's share of women's
identity naturally derives from the men they are with—or without.
But there are other stretches of Bolick's essay where her blind spots show. Bolick whines that the
dating scene is populated by an increasing number of men who are either deadbeats or players and what a bane this is for women. Too many men are looking for convenient, no strings-attached
sex, or are sticking with "commitment" only until they see that moving on has more advantages than staying in the relationship. But why is Bolick single? Why at 39 does she have "too many ex-boyfriends to count?" Because, she says, she elevated "independence over coupling." Because time after time there was "something missing" in the stable relationships she chose to end. Player? Deadbeat? Would it be unfair to apply those labels to Bolick? What would Bolick's ex-boyfriends call her if they got together to whine?
If we want to increase our sexual insight we need to become both more self-reflective and more honest. Bolick spends a lot of time diagnosing and labeling others. As is the case with most of us, she finds it easier to see others' blind spots than her own.
