Fatherless
and fancy free

Dear Sasha, My friend and I have the same question about the correlation between promiscuity and lack of a father figure—is there one? Neither of us feel remorse about flirting with men of all ages and are naturally able to do so, simply because we don’t have the ability to link any man with the platonic relationship that daughters have with their fathers.

Frack feels that she looks for security within relationships rather than the “touchy-feely mushy gushy” (she is presently seeing someone aged). I don’t know what to think; I’m currently dating someone six years older and think it’s going well, so far. Both men have the qualities of a lover and a best friend, yet we’re both sick of that nagging feeling that, as statistics suggest, fatherless women are more apt to be licentious and participate in sex at a younger age.

Everyone implies that we’re keener to date mature men because we haven’t had that connection. I feel that men my age are boys and frankly I’m just not attracted to the dependent, “Quick, my mom’s home!” routine.

-Frick and Frack

Dear Frick and Frack,

Sure, you can find statistics about women with an absent father figure being sexually precocious and subsequently promiscuous and naturally there are always exceptions to these studies. You’re reading one right now.

My biggest problem with all this is that studies observing sexuality often approach it from a sex-negative perspective, intending primarily to ferret out abuse or neglect, as though sex is inherently immoral and therefore all reasons for wanting it must be rooted in damage. In your case, the implication is that being a young slut and being attracted to older men is categorically wrong and a consequence of some mistreatment. How about instead congratulating yourself that despite the fact that you probably had little formal education around sexuality and likely whatever you did get was tinged in shame, you still manage to enjoy yourself and find partners that suit your needs?

And on the topic of managing relationships…

As the expression goes, there are two things you don’t want to see being made—sausage and legislation. I’d like to add open relationships to that. Is it any wonder I’ve found so many poly people I’ve rubbed shoulders with at parties lacking in current cultural awareness and personal style? They’re too busy processing, negotiating and checking in to develop any interests or hobbies outside of their relationships.

And yet, according to the latest addition to the poly canon, Tristan Taormino’s Opening Up, it’s precisely this kind of intense group navel-gazing that is required to make just about any relationship work including monogamy, a model which Taormino, unlike many other poly advocates, holds in as much esteem as non-monogamy.

The book itself is a perfect metaphor for its subject; it is both rewarding and frustrating, at times feeling like a Marquez novel when the people Taormino interviewed chime in with their personal anecdotes (wait, which Buendia was she talking about, the boyfriend Buendia, the husband Buendia or the co-husband Buendia?). “As a general rule,” Taormino writes, “people who are good at open relationships are organized. Seriously, you need a calendar, a PDA, scheduling, software—whatever it takes to keep track of your life. Non-monogamous people must become skilled at scheduling, otherwise it won’t work.”

In a recent interview on Polyamory Weekly (polyweekly.com) Taormino mentioned that before editing, the book was over 600 pages long (guess that’ll be the special lesbian edition—kidding ladies…) and you can see why. Opening Up delineates nearly every imaginable scenario and configuration and offers many excellent suggestions and tactics, not just for managing the relationships themselves but the legal and social ramifications involved in having them. It is a candid and meticulous look at what it takes to negotiate and sustain open relationships.

Got any questions for Sasha? E-MAIL: POULEDELUXE@YAHOO.COM