I'm pretty sure her straight male friend theory was already debunked by "When Harry Met Sally." Nice try, Dawn. Meanwhile, is this chastity week at Gawker? First Rivers Cuomo, now this.

Her critique of the singles scene: "When I had nonmarital sex, I became accustomed to seeing myself as a commodity-a varied collection of looks, wit, intellect, and je ne sais quois. I looked for men whose commodities were worth as much as my own. Most of all, I looked for men whose commodities were readily apparent. The singles scene isn't known for its subtlety. Men who were reserved or modest, who didn't flirt readily, who weren't attuned to my single-gal vibe-the nature of my casual-sex mind-set forced them all out of the running." Does she not realize that marriage is the historical and social sum total of commodoties methodolgy? Hell fucking yes it is dehumanizing. But how is husband hunting any different? It sure as hell isn't any more honest. Sure, casual sex may not lead to a deep relationship, but Eden leave important questions unanswered and makes broad assumptions (pun totally intended). For example, not all woman are looking for a husband with every random fuck, if at all. If I'm sleeping with a player, and am not smart enough to figure that out--maybe that's because I am naively chasing an idealized man and an idealized social situation. Also, what, I would like to know, makes marriage so special anyway. How is it so different from any other serious, committed long term relationship? If I'm not religious, and I think the government is shitty for not letting the gays join in the fun, and I resent changing my name and merging my finances per se, then why should i run so rabidly after the sacrament? I just want someone to explain to me what about that ceremony magically changes the relationship. Someone explain. All of this navel gazing only takes us backwards. If it isn't feminism's fault, it's individual women's. (Eden, Flanagan and others are saying the same thing as the Right Wing.) Why can't it (still) be the sexist media, traditional gender roles, the patriarchy...asshole men even? Analyzing that was how we got the little we have now anyway. Where are all the good Harlot books these days?

So, women who have sex outside of marriage don't really appreciate men and can only be friends with the gays. Because we can't possibly appreciate how wonderful hetero men are (because we're too busy schtupping them??), and our lives are really like TV shows. Stop stereotyping single women in New York, and maybe we'll stop stereotyping humorless right-wingers. Though really, if I wasn't having casual sex, I might be a little testy, too

Dunno for sure, but it sounds to me like Dawn is blaming casual sex for making her superficial. My guess is--certainly not debunked by reading this column--is that she was superficial before she started boning strangers, during her "wild and wanton" days, and remains so. Which isn't a whole lot different than about 90% of human beings on planet earth.

I'm confused -- she's a Catholic AND a former Jew AND a former Protestant!? What, have the Scientologists stopped recruiting?

Yes, clearly casual sex is the key to the world's happiness and casual sex is so important that we won't even let anyone question its virtues at all. In fact, let's see more ad hominem arguments against Eden. Wouldn't want to engage her thoughts at all now would we. We have here that she is uptight because she isn't getting laid, is a loony religious nut. Do I hear a "fatty boombaladdy" anywhere? How about a "McStinky" slur? The fact is that Eden has a point and we all know it. Casual sex seems like a fabulous and wonderful idea (partly because, well, it feels very fabulous and wonderful) but it tends to have high costs, for both women and men. Whether those costs be lack of long-term exclusive intimacy, disease, unintended pregnancies, delayed marriage, delayed pregnancies or an incentive to focus on qualities that attract the opposite sex for the short-term instead of virtues for the long haul. Schtup whoever you want but go ahead and ponder the arguments against cosplay with random strangers before you dismiss them.

So Dawn Eden has made choices that have not had the best results for her. She accuses the culture of pushing her to make those choices (or something like that), as she was somehow powerless. She writes a book with part of its thesis that all women that make choices similar to hers will have the same results/concequences as her's and thus she must educate all the ignorant and misguided before it is too late. Oh yeah, and popular culture must provide neutered men and invisible gays. Simple, just so simple, kinda of like K-fed. Or is it narcissistic. . . yes that is it.

As an unmarried woman who enjoys sex and who doesn't see marriage in her immediate (if ever), future, am I supposed to hold out and wait for my magical prince charming to grace me with his presence just in order to get laid? And worse, can I not just have a friendship with a hetero man because I could only possibly be interested in dating/marrying him, because apparently I can never "know" him or enjoy his friendship because I am only interested in having sex with him and possibly marrying him? Oh, and gay men? They're just straight-boyfriend substitutes. They are not just people who are my friends. She is uptight because she is making assumptions about me and saying that I will never meet the right man or have fulfilling straight male friendships because I have casual sex. I don't care what she does with her body, I just think she might have more fun if she relaxes a bit. You know what has higher emotional costs than casual sex? Getting a divorce. Having kids in a loveless marriage. Cheating on your spouse because you can't stand him/her anymore. Getting married is not the panacea for emotional problems. If anything, it exacerbates them. I would rather take my chances with a condom and a semi-stranger for right now, thank you very much. And Eden doesn't deserve to tell me whether that is right or wrong. That is the issue.

In fact, let's see more ad hominem arguments against Eden. Wouldn't want to engage her thoughts at all now would we. Okay, "Cookie." How about this? In the excerpt linked, she writes:

Likewise, when you become chaste, you'll notice for the first time that women who have sex outside of marriage don't really appreciate men. You can't see this when you're having nonmarital sex, because you don't realize how much there really is about men to appreciate. You think the mere fact that you're attracted to them and that they seem to wield such power over you shows you appreciate them for what they really are. From there, it's a short step to the cynical stereotype we all know from popular culture-the worldly wise, "been there, done that" single woman who doesn't trust men any farther than she can throw them.

Okay, now for engaging her thoughts. This is a completely baseless thing to say. Dawn is extending her experience to apply to everyone. And that just simply isn't the case, especially when you're talking about something as loaded and personal as sex and relationships. If Dawn had written something along the lines of "When I became chaste, I realized for the first time that when I wasn't, I wasn't really appreciating men for who they are", then I'd have no problem with that. But she's not. She's saying that all women who have sex outside of marriage don't really appreciate men, which makes no sense. Dawn can talk all she wants to about finding fulfillment through chastity, and contrasting it with her own experience (I presume) of non-chastity is fine...but she shouldn't really be surprised when others' experience doesn't mirror her own. Clearly, other people are finding fulfilling, enriching relationships outside of marriage, so Dawn's point about women who have non-married sex not appreciating men is demonstrably untrue. She's making a generalization that just doesn't fit everyone, and she's insisting that it does. And when she's called on it, she (disingenuously) responds by saying that it's directed at the people who've already decided to buy her book. Huh?

Furthermore, in Dawn's response to this post here, she goes on and on, lecturing Our Dear Jessica about character. I guess the point is that if you make your living writing Gawker, you have no character. (um, I reserve judgment on whether or not Jesse and Jessica have character. They've never tried to corrupt me.) And of course Dawn has to cap this off with a snarky aside directed at Feministe. It is to laugh, no?

I just want to know what "nonmarital sex" is. Premarital? Extramarital? Postmarital, which I guess you get because of the extramarital? All of the above?