Here goes: The thing I notice is not a lack of sex writing among US writers, but how much of it is either embarassing or boring, which also reflects a deep discomfort. Not too long ago, I was writing something that I knew would contain extensive, explicit sex scenes and also passages of critical, literary reflection. Looking for models, I noticed how, although there were some fine writers, what was really missing was a tradition of such writing in American lit. as opposed to some European and Asian cultures. I think our legacy of Puritanism and religious zealotry combined with an anti-aristocratic, ant-elitist populism has lead to an instinctive anti-erotic anti-intellectual trend in our literature. Those who do write about these topics (and who are mostly listed already in other posts) then appear as rebels or subversives, which can be great, and has produced some of my heroes, but is still a kind of adolescent position, ultimately defined by the larger culture. I think this is a kind of historical lack: We have no Sade, as it were.

I have not had time to think this all through completely. I even came to suspect a secret complicity between say, philosophy and pornography. But I do think that one thing American Literature can use more of is not just “sex” but smart, dirty, grown-up, exciting writing about sex and ideas: We need Adult Entertainment, in every sense of the term.

But what is possibly most disconcerting, and sadly, it isn’t just you, about your, what could we say? 80% “agreement”? (in which you go on to attack the premises of the article): you call out Roiphe for merely “talking about hetero white men.”

Somewhere, and it seems to make an excellent bedfellow for the semantic PC-ness Roiphe implies is birthed from feminism, people latched on to “multiculturalism” as a basic tenet of every discourse. No, something other than white male heterosexuals does NOT need to included, because that’s not part of the her HYPOTHESIS. She’s looking at a fairly basic (if specific) definition of today’s “new guard” and yesterday’s “old guard.” The three old guys were famous in their time, the young guys have achieved considerable renown today. Those are the boundaries of the argument! If you’re talking about the use of the tritone in “top 40″ songs for the last 20 years you shouldn’t be attacked because you don’t reference Fela Kuti and Cesaria Evora! Yes, Kathi Acker, William S. Burroughs, Kobe Abe, Jean Genet, A.M. Homes, Robert Coover, Nicholson Baker, and your boy Stephen Elliott have all written– graphically, even!– about sex. Let’s never forget that for moment, regardless of what we’re arguing about. But they (and those on your erudite list) are not part of THIS argument. If you want to write a thesis about those writers’ use of sex, fantastic, but we’re looking at (a) American males who are (b) popular, (c) write about women and (d) generally deemed artistically gratifying. “A” and “C” destroy the need for discussion of your beloved queer, Ceylonese, southern gothic female, and Andalusian anarchist scribes; “B” is a group you do an admirable job of qualifying yourself. As you would have it, the formula is as simple as: they are not popular because they write about sex! “D” negates the need to mention, say, Chuck Palahniuk. Thank christ.

You’re the equivalent of the guy who wants to dominate a conversation about some TV show by harping on about Fellini. Or by adding a list of Korean “revenge” films at the end of an article someone wrote about “Speed.” “Hey, how come there aren’t more white dudes mentioned in your essay about the origins of be-bop?!?!!”

After all the other random slights you’ve made on an ARGUMENT YOU BASICALLY AGREE WITH, you have either the gall or naivete to ask why someone would write this piece in the first place… “Wouldn’t a cultural critic writing a think piece for the NYTBR want to consider something a little less, uh, conjectural. Such as the role of sex itself in the culture at large?” Hey, if the only thing keeping you from writing for the NYTBR is “getting your shit together,” go for it! What precocious 7th grader wouldn’t want to read (or indeed, write) an essay on “The role of sex in today’s culture at large”? Oof!

Alas, with this grandiose, vague, unformed idea you giveth; with the other, you cruelly taketh away again: writing for such high stakes is deemed merely reaching for “that brass ring of neediness.” Well, I’m no apologist for her, and there are plenty of things about her argument I’m unsold on, but Roiphe obviously can’t win. Why write an article appearing in a world-famous publication and for which you are remunerated monetarily? Apparently, you’re just showing us how needy you are!

Your stern protestations aside, I think you’re delighted this article exists. Look at all the copy you generated, and all the responses from a bunch of people who are delighted to jump on any snarky bandwagon against something else. (whoops, I just realized I discovered this piece on Flavorwire; the comments on Rumpus actually seem to be the result of some kind of cognitive process, so let me take that part back.) Just icing on the cake: you got to write “Big Cock Block” at the top!

http://therumpus.net/2009/07/how-to-write-sex-scenes-the-12-step-program/