web
counter
 

Jeezy Creezy This Girl Gets Around

By Nicole Fuscia | Posted Under Book Reviews | Comments (86)



karery-cohen.jpg

One of my favorite memoirs is Koren Zailkas’s Smashed. If you haven’t read it, you should. It’s a moving, sincere, and honest look at a young girl’s battle with alcoholism. My love of that memoir led me to purchase Loose Girl. Kerry Cohen’s account of a lonely girl who becomes a sex addict is troubling and unflinching, and in my opinion, unlikable.

Cohen’s tale begins with the sad story of a young girl just searching for approval and love; she wants a boyfriend but thinks that sex is the only way to attain this Holy Grail. As we know now, looking back as grownups, this is not true, but in Cohen’s mixed-up adolescent mind the two are one and the same and so she pursues boys, then men, relentlessly, giving hand jobs, blowjobs, and eventually her virginity in her quest to find the person who will fill the void in her soul left by loneliness. Lost in the shuffle of her parents’ divorce - her mother goes off to medical school in the Philippines while her father moves to an apartment where he keeps drugs and a gun, and offers no supervision or boundaries because he’s too cool for that - Cohen is a North Jersey rich kid who parties in New York and at other wealthy kids’ houses on school nights and weekends. Equally lost is Cohen’s sister Tyler, living in her own world separate from Cohen and their father but still clinging to their mother, trying desperately to be the latter’s confidante and favorite. Cohen never feels that she belongs anywhere, but in the brief sexual interludes in which she engages over and over and over again, she sometimes finds momentary fulfillment. However, far too often, the opposite is true, and this drives her deeper into a hole of despair, confusion, and self-loathing.

As her tale progresses through high school and college, Cohen racks up the numbers (in her foreword Cohen admits to at least 40 sexual partners, not including those with whom she did not have intercourse) and searches for that one man who will love her, understand her, give her worth, but all she finds is an ever-increasing need. Finally, in college, there is one boy, Eli, with whom she begins an actual relationship. However, something in Cohen, that need, works against her - “Where before I felt tentative with Eli, I’m now fervent. I cling to him like a lifeline…I’ve allowed every other valuable thing to pass through my fingers.” Of course, when the relationship goes south, as college relationships are wont to do, Cohen again turns blame on herself. “I haven’t learned yet that people bring their baggage along and then dump it over their partner’s head.” Eventually it ends, and Cohen goes back to a string of men, any who will have her. Her next boyfriend, Leif, gives her crabs and she finds out that she’s picked up HPV along the way. She has her first HIV test. All the while, she’s finding her voice as a writer, taking classes and attending workshops, but still unable to validate herself in any way unrelated to sex and love. At one point, in a session with a campus therapist, she admits, “I’m sick of spending all my energy trying to get loved.”

Cohen moves to Arizona from Massachusetts after college to pursue a master’s, but continues to sleep around. At this point I just wanted the book over with and considered skipping to the end; I wanted to take a damn shower and quite possibly scrub the book with a Brillo pad while wearing latex gloves. From Arizona, Cohen heads to Portland, Oregon, fucking her way along. I’m sorry, but there’s no kinder way to put it. My God, this girl had so much NEED. More, more, more. More men, more attention, more momentary false intimacy. “Need and sex have always been confused for me.” She graduates with her MFA, teaches, and writes, and still the “parade of boys continues.” This is when I thought, OK, enough, Nicole. Just walk away. But I never walk away from a book. Unless it’s Anna Karenina.

Even while Cohen is in therapy, realizing that she has a serious issue, she’s trying to sleep with a married fellow attendee at a writers’ retreat in Vermont. Jeezy Creezy. Eventually, she finally stops. Do you know why? She gets bored. She declares a moratorium on her vagina, in her own words. She realizes the futility of it all. She meets a nice man who she doesn’t want to fuck on the first date, and she marries him. She almost lapses shortly after her wedding but overcomes the moment of weakness. The end.

Part of me thinks that Cohen is still searching for approval and acceptance, only now it’s through her writing. The latter half of the book just rubbed me the wrong way; it was so very “Look at me! Listen to me! Absorb my stories and feel my hurts!” Maybe I’m a bitch; maybe I just don’t get it. I don’t recommend this book unless you want your brain pummeled with a boxing glove studded with rusty anvils.

Nicole Fuscia is a book critic for Pajiba and the director of the Cannonball Read. She lives in Philadelphia, where she spends her days staring at spreadsheets and her nights reading at least two books at a time.










Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Pirate Latitudes by Michael Crichton | Pirate Latitudes by Michael Crichton









Comments

Am I a bad person if I saw the title to this and I immediately thought of "Dennis Reynolds: An Erotic Life"? Maybe it's cause I was just watching Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

Posted by: A-ron at February 15, 2010 12:09 PM

"Cohen’s mixed-up adolescent mind the two are one and the same and so she pursues boys, then men, relentlessly, giving hand jobs, blowjobs, and eventually her virginity in her quest to find the person who will fill the void in her soul"

Are you certain this woman isn't a Pajibette?


/BAM!

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at February 15, 2010 12:10 PM

Ha:

But I never walk away from a book. Unless it’s Anna Karenina.

Oh I lurve you. Me, too. Me, too.

Anywho, don't think I'll be reading this one because, while I wasn't as bad as this lady sounds, the emotional underpinnings that started her whole problem just sound far too familiar to me. Growing up lonely, attention-starved, undersupervised and physically precocious is like some sort of perfect storm for ho-ism for an unfortunate young girl.

So no thanks. There's certainly reason to discuss the causes and prevention of what led her (and many others) down that lonely road. But it sounds like this is more repetetive confessional and less reflection?

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at February 15, 2010 12:15 PM

40 sexual partners? Let's say she gave away her flower when she was 16, and got married when she was 36. That averages out to two whole sexual partners a year. I'm not so sure I believe in her promiscuous credentials. Or her foreword.

Posted by: SaBrina at February 15, 2010 12:35 PM

Bleh. I wanna take a shower just from reading your review. Sex...good. Desperate, attention-starved ho-ness...bad.

Posted by: Sbrown at February 15, 2010 12:37 PM

But it sounds like this is more repetetive confessional and less reflection?

Snuggie, that's what really bothered me. It had a tone of "that girl" telling her stories for the 20th time at a dinner party and making everyone else uncomfortable.

Posted by: Nicole at February 15, 2010 12:47 PM

Oh and I want to second what SaBrina said. I know plenty of women who lost it around 15 or 16 years old and were single well into their 30s. Their number, I can assure you, is NOT 40. It's at least dozens more than that. I caught up recently with an old high school friend who, after a few too many margaritas, very loudly announced that, though she was virginal until our high school graduation, she was now to the "300s" in numbers of sexual partners. And counting.

What do you say to that? Congratulations? I'm no prude and I certainly don't care (except watch those STDs, ladies!), but it was a truly awkward moment, lemme tell ya.

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at February 15, 2010 12:57 PM

Maybe I am a prude, but I think scrumpin' 40 guys in less than 20 years is a lot. Cohen is 40 now, has been married with children for some time, and was in a couple of long term relationships before that. Hell, I cashed in my V card at 15 with my boyfriend of almost two years, and I'm 31, and my number is a mere fraction of Cohen's.

Posted by: Nicole at February 15, 2010 1:06 PM

Re: my comment above - I think what I'm trying to say is that a girl/woman shouldn't NOT be able to remember all her partners. You don't have to sleep with every male who crosses your path, which is what Cohen did, at least according to her book.

Posted by: Nicole at February 15, 2010 1:10 PM

Yeah, 40 isn't a lot. I mean, she certainly wasn't a prudent lass, but anyone who writes a memoir called "Loose" had better average more than two a year. My memoir will be called "Generous With Her Carnal Affections."

Posted by: kate the great at February 15, 2010 1:23 PM

Bleh.

What's the point of a relationship, even (?especially?) 3-minutes of opportunistic friction, that doesn't leave all players better off? I need a travelogue of a decades'-long unmotivated search for that particular clue?

Related, assuming the Snuggie-Friend is more positively engaged, is a banana-hammock and wooden acting required for an audition?

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at February 15, 2010 1:24 PM

What?

Posted by: the new transported man at February 15, 2010 1:32 PM

Hell, I cashed in my V card at 15 with my boyfriend of almost two years, and I'm 31, and my number is a mere fraction of Cohen's.

Posted by: Nicole at February 15, 2010 1:06 PM

-------------------------------------------

HA!

/slut

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at February 15, 2010 1:44 PM

I'm 50 years old and my count is still 1.

You're all a bunch of Slutibas.

Posted by: BWeaves at February 15, 2010 1:51 PM

I always have trouble with conversations like this: there's everyone's inclination to joke and call other women sluts and whores. There's my own inclination to joke about it.

Then I remember too vividly what it was like to truly think that of myself and to know others did, too.

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at February 15, 2010 2:00 PM

This sounds similar to the book I am currently reading except that in mine, the writer is an abotrion addict. I am not expecting to be on her side at all, but I need to know how someone can make such terrible choices and then feel the need to share.

To me, the number of partners is irrelevant, it is the motivation behind the encounters. If you are having a lot of sex and partners because it is something that you enjoy, all power to you. But if you are doing these things to be loved, or for other self destructive reasons, then there is a problem.

Posted by: Alli at February 15, 2010 2:03 PM

Yeah, she sounds annoying. But were there any good sex scenes?

Posted by: rhombus at February 15, 2010 2:22 PM

Yeah, let's not get into the name-calling. I don't think I'm a slut, personally, considering that was the only guy I had sex with in high school, and two years in high school is like five years in real people years.

Let me clear up one thing: she says "at least" 40, but she gave up trying to count, so it could have been 100. The number was irrelevant; I focused more on this deep consistent need she had for validation, at least in my reading of the book.

Posted by: Nicole at February 15, 2010 2:29 PM

Oh, both Alli and Snuggie made a point I wanted to address. A lot, and I mean a LOT, of the sexual encounters Cohen had were unprotected. It was an additional element of risk and self-neglect that made me upset.

Posted by: Nicole at February 15, 2010 2:43 PM

Oh boy.

Just kidding folks.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at February 15, 2010 2:50 PM

Eh, the "confessional" genre is tired and getting more so with every passing year. Once it was kind of brave to confess publicly to being a junkie or slut or drunk or whatever, but now, it's clearly just attention whoring by different names. Without having read this book or many other similar autobiographies, sounds like the same malady - the "I have to be the center of attention or I do not exist" disease. Boring.

Posted by: Slash at February 15, 2010 2:54 PM

Ah, Slim, you're cool, I just don't want others to see that as an opening to start coming in with the name nonsense. (Yes, I could have worded that sentence better, but my brain is tired.)

Posted by: Nicole at February 15, 2010 2:58 PM

I freely admitted I do the joking, too. It's just a weird topic for me, that's all.

I recently heard other 40 year old moms calling 14 and 15 year old girls, friends of their own daughters, "sluts." I bristled. A lot. I really don't think it's appropriate for adults to call children sluts and whores. Even if that girl is banging the whole football team and you have 100% validated proof of such, shouldn't the concern be why she's doing this rather than so much energy spent on ugly condemnation?

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at February 15, 2010 3:21 PM

Snuggie, exactly my thoughts. What is it that is making these young girls behave this way? What are they missing? Isn't it the same self-harming behavior as cutting, anorexia, etc.? I think your point shows that there is still such a stigma attached to sexuality even though we have an awareness of the intense psychological pain that gives root to these actions.

Posted by: Nicole at February 15, 2010 3:26 PM

Oh, I was a slut. My friends and I owned the word. We knew we were having tons more fun than our hypocrite prudey contemporaries. To hell with the haters.

That said:
If you are a young woman and you're fucking around looking for validation/intimacy/love...

...and years of this go by, and all the random fucking never gets you that validation/intimacy/love you want...

...at what point can I call you an idiot for not figuring out that it doesn't work??

Idiot.

Posted by: Vulnavia at February 15, 2010 3:37 PM

Slash I agree and have a theory about it, actually. The confessional is fairly easy to write, as writing goes. It's all about me. As long as it is titillating enough or if the content is at least titillating enough, I don't need to really sweat a lot over it.

On the other hand, crafting a really good STORY, autobiographical, fictional, or somewhere in between, takes a bit more work. Or in some cases, a LOT more work. I used the verb "crafting" intentionally and I normally like my verbs plain and unsalted, but this one fits so well...

Nicole One mother, in particular, was so passionate about declaring every other girl in the freshman class besides her daughter and my own a "slut" that I became extremely wary of her. My protestations were met with her only getting more shrill and insistent. Finally, I realized she was terrified of her own daughter becoming a "slut." So terrified, they moved to a tiny rural area hundreds of miles away. I guess they don't have boys there. Or girls. Really, mom was just terrified of sexuality, period.

But there were others, and they seemed much more gleeful in dismissing 14 and 15 year old girls (girls!!!) as "whores, the lot of 'em." Oooo it gave me cold chills. Laughing and gleeful. Spreading rumors. I noticed the girls targeted the most highly were, of course, the ones who already most resembled grown women and/or very attractive women. The tall girls, the blonde girls, the chesty girls, the girls who might favor shorter skirts than the others, the girls with unsettlingly pretty eyes. I started to see a pattern.

It's sad, but for a moment I felt thrilled that my daughter is only 5'2", befreckled, tiny, looking more like a 12 year old than a 15 year old, and favoring jeans and hoodies rather than skirts, no matter what the length. For that, she was spared.

Vicious.

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at February 15, 2010 3:47 PM

Finally! A book about a broad that likes to fuck. You go girl! Free yourself from the shackles of conformity and set that twat loose upon this great nation.

Posted by: Orrin Hatch at February 15, 2010 4:06 PM

I think Slim, Nicole and Snuggie deserve a slow clap. That could have gotten ugly.

Posted by: ScienceGeek at February 15, 2010 4:06 PM

Finally! A book about a broad that likes to fuck. You go girl! Free yourself from the shackles of conformity and set that twat loose upon this great nation.

Posted by: Orrin Hatch at February 15, 2010 4:06 PM

Kerry Cohen’s account of a lonely girl who becomes a sex addict is troubling and unflinching, and in my opinion, unlikable.

Sorry, shouldn't this be more of an actual 'book review', and less of a 'burn the whore at the stake rant'? You've said it's unlikeable because you can't relate to Kerry's issues. Simply because you can't relate to an illness or an addiction does not make it less real. Does the book focus any more on the causes of her issues? I'm not sure, because the 'reviewer' didn't really delve into that chapter, due to self righteous indignation. You're judging this woman based on your own moral compass, and very little said about her writing style.

Just curious, is it well written? Poorly? Should that not be indicated in a, you know, review?

/steps off soapbox.

Posted by: Maniak at February 15, 2010 4:10 PM

40 sexual partners? Let's say she gave away her flower when she was 16, and got married when she was 36. That averages out to two whole sexual partners a year. I'm not so sure I believe in her promiscuous credentials.

Word, as long as you're using "gave away her flower" ironically, which it seems likely you are. If she's doing it for the wrong reasons, which she seemed to think she was, then she needs to take a long look at herself. But 40 is not a high number for someone at that age, and 100, while probably statistically unusual, isn't any big deal either, as long she's responsible about protecting her partners.

Thinking poorly of someone for their number of sex partners is no different than a fundamentalist nutbag condemning a woman for using contraception or living with her boyfriend -- it's an empty imposition of meaningless, self-righteous "morality" that doesn't stand up to any kind of logical analysis.

This story seems more interesting as a commentary on our society's hypocritical treatment of women's sexuality -- she thinks sleeping with 40-100 men is something to be ashamed of in and of itself. If this book were written by a man, no one would give a shit and it couldn't get published, unless it were some celebrity annotating his encyclopedia of fucking. Color me unimpressed.

Posted by: socalledonlycousins at February 15, 2010 4:29 PM

I think the issue is less the number than the fact that she was using sex to attempt to boost her non-existent self-esteem and sense of self-worth. If you just want to have sex because you love it, and you're being safe, hey, go on with your bad self. If you're screwing like a rabbit to make up for a void in your soul, that's a problem. Just like any other self-harming psychological behavior.

Maniak, sorry you thought I was self-righteous and didn't review well enough. Please feel free to read it yourself and form your own opinions. One of the contributing factors to this review is the fact that the "story" was shopworn and thin about a quarter of the way through.

Posted by: Nicole at February 15, 2010 4:40 PM

Well, What a crying shame we all cant be a towering pillar of virtue like Ms.Fuscia. How nice it must be to be so much better than others. This woman bares her soul and relates her life experience, the sharp and ugly bits, and in one hamfisted poorly executed "review" our Ms. Fuscia reveals one character flaw of her own after another. Nicely done. I think we have all learned a lot here. Indeed, who are 'these women' who are so worthy of your contempt? Such wanton whores. As socalledonlycousins so aptly points out, if this were a man recounting his escapades it would not be remarkable. Color me unimpressed as well. By the sex-tally and the review.

Posted by: Fucking Hell at February 15, 2010 4:53 PM

I think I missed the moral righteousness from Nicole. In fact, I see quite a bit of sympathy from her in that review. It's the writing itself she seems to take to task.

Hell, you aren't going to love everything you review.

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at February 15, 2010 5:24 PM

From the very title the moral superiority drips from this review.

Posted by: Fucking Hell at February 15, 2010 5:27 PM

@Fucking Hell

Would that be the title of the review, or the title of the book, which is "Loose Girl: A Memoir of Promiscuity"

I don't think Nicole is being especially judgmental, this is a confessional memoir by a woman who acknowledges she engaged in promiscuous, unprotected sex in an effort to gain validation and that this behavior was damaging and self-destructive. The tone characterizing this behavior as unhealthy is set by the author here. The review appears to be in the same spirit as the book.

Posted by: Yossarian at February 15, 2010 5:50 PM

Fucking Hell, if you are referring to the title of this review, it seems to me that the title was meant to be humorous. When dealing with a serious or uncomfortable subject, some people like to laugh a little.

Snuggie, your tales of the mothers of your daughter's friends and classmates make me shudder. I fear for future generations of teen girls as this behavior of calling other girls "sluts" and "whores" seems to have progressed from the kids to the mothers. What is next? Will it be okay for unrelated adults to do so? Will dads start doing it to look "cool"? I wish society as a whole would condemn this type of behavior.

Posted by: stardust at February 15, 2010 5:57 PM

RE Fucking Hell:
"This woman bares her soul and relates her life experience, the sharp and ugly bits..."

I wish fewer people would bare their souls and relate their life experience, because most of them are boring as shit. Esp. this "I slept around a lot because my parents neglected me" sub-genre. Young girls and women still seek attention from men in the only way many of them know how (or the easiest, most labor-free way)? No kidding? Men will pay attention to you (for a while, anyway) if you show them your tits and offer to suck their dick? Amazing. This puts a whole new spin on the male-female dynamic.

After all this time, so many women still think that the most interesting thing about them is how many penises they've touched or how big their tits are. It's sad that so many people agree with them.

Posted by: Slash at February 15, 2010 6:03 PM

@ Yossarain:
Fair enough. The title to which I was refering was "Jeezy Creezy This Girl Gets Around"
The tenor of the follow up discussion by Ms. Fuscia and her obvious disdain for the sheer MAGNITUDE of the number of partners is more off putting than much of the review. Still, phrases like:

"Cohen racks up the numbers (in her foreword Cohen admits to at least 40 sexual partners, not including those with whom she did not have intercourse)"
"I wanted to take a damn shower and quite possibly scrub the book with a Brillo pad while wearing latex gloves. From Arizona, Cohen heads to Portland, Oregon, fucking her way along. I’m sorry, but there’s no kinder way to put it. My God, this girl had so much NEED."
"she’s trying to sleep with a married fellow attendee at a writers’ retreat in Vermont. Jeezy Creezy. "

Oooze disdain and superiority. 40 partners in the adult life of a single woman is not so very many as to warrant such derision. If the author chooses to express her feelings as such, fine, but the reviewer is clearly moralizing here. I am quite certain that there is precedent in the world for married people to sleep with others outside their marriage. The details of such arrangements are not anyone else's business. The editorial comment 'Jeezy Creezy' is clearly pejorative. I am afraid I will have to disagree that there was "no kinder way to put it."

The tone and spirit of the book appear to be an unflinching examination of a life lived imperfectly. The review is unkind.

Posted by: Fucking Hell at February 15, 2010 6:14 PM

If you're screwing like a rabbit to make up for a void in your soul, that's a problem. Just like any other self-harming psychological behavior.
"Some girls are anorexic, other's turn to alcohol and drugs. I chose sex. Loose girls" is the title preamble on the cover of this book. I would suggest that is exactly what Ms. Cohen is trying to convey.

Oh, both Alli and Snuggie made a point I wanted to address. A lot, and I mean a LOT, of the sexual encounters Cohen had were unprotected. It was an additional element of risk and self-neglect that made me upset.
I find the moral bar in which you judge the author rather skewed. To judge someone by today's standards of "safe sex" and your own moral compass is unjust. Ms. Cohen was born in 1970. The awareness and education of sexually transmitted diseases were not as prevalent then as they are now.
Part of me thinks that Cohen is still searching for approval and acceptance, only now it’s through her writing. The latter half of the book just rubbed me the wrong way; it was so very “Look at me! Listen to me!
An author puts themselves out there with every work, much like yourself today Ms. Fuscia.
Once they complete their work, it must stand on its own or the author has not done their job. I find your continued comments ( at least 8 by last count) are also so very "Look at me! Listen to me! Who is the one looking for acceptance?

Posted by: youmademedoit at February 15, 2010 6:17 PM

Slash:
I agree. My issue is with the tenor and tone of the review. Not an accolade for the book itself. I am not interested in reading about this woman's journey of self discovery. I don't find it particularly provocative. I also cannot STAND 90% of the reality TV nonsense that is along such lines.

Posted by: Fucking Hell at February 15, 2010 6:20 PM

Looking for acceptance? Nah. Just something I call "joining the discussion." I do it in most book reviews when I get the chance.

Posted by: Nicole at February 15, 2010 6:59 PM

To judge someone by today's standards of "safe sex" and your own moral compass is unjust. Ms. Cohen was born in 1970. The awareness and education of sexually transmitted diseases were not as prevalent then as they are now.

I would just like to point out here that I was also born in 1970, and I knew all about safe sex and STDs. They were taught to me in school. 1970 is not the dark ages. We did not ride dinosaurs to school. And condoms were readily available.

The review is unkind.

I would also like to point out that reviews are often unkind.

Posted by: Anna von Beaverpuppet at February 15, 2010 7:07 PM

It seems as though you people are searching for some sort of meaning for sex. Sex is not the holy grail, nor is it nothing to sneeze at.

The feminist have ruined women’s perception of sex, the feminist have told women that sex is a bad thing and therefore it is something that should be shunned unless it is between two women.

The author of this book in my opinion has touched a nerve, there is nothing wrong with a strong independent woman having multiple sex partners.

I was watching TLC or some other channel last night, it was about strange sexual addictions. One broad was addicted to masturbating and she went to many doctors to seek help, after finding a doctor that was able to treat her addiction with medication the broad stop taking it because she couldn’t live without the mental and physical part of her addiction.

It was very enlighten, the broad was very educated and smart, in the end she didn’t see her addiction as a problem, the broad was handed some lemons and she made lemonade.

Posted by: Orrin Hatch at February 15, 2010 7:13 PM

Looking for acceptance? Nah. Just something I call "joining the discussion." I do it in most book reviews when I get the chance.
Snuggie, that's what really bothered me. It had a tone of "that girl" telling her stories for the 20th time at a dinner party and making everyone else uncomfortable.

I find your interjected comments within the thread a further testimonial to the moral tone of your original piece and I find you do your 'review' a further dis-service by trying to re-state your case.

I would just like to point out here that I was also born in 1970, and I knew all about safe sex and STDs. They were taught to me in school. 1970 is not the dark ages. We did not ride dinosaurs to school. And condoms were readily available.
I never indicated that condoms, nor sexual education were not available. I too was born in the 1970's, but the attitude and approach to safe sex was different then, than today and I find it unfair to compare apples to oranges.

Posted by: youmademedoit at February 15, 2010 7:33 PM

Socalledonly I love your brain. That is all.

Posted by: sarahsaurus at February 15, 2010 7:41 PM

Great review Nicole! I will add this book to the already overflowing basket of memoirs about people who screw/have screwed alot.

Posted by: Seraf at February 15, 2010 8:01 PM

Mr (I presume you are a Mr but you never know with t'interweb) Orrin Hatch, you have made my day.
If "the feminist" has done anything with regard to women and their sexuality, then it has been to free women from being baby making machines and to enjoy sex, rather than seeing it as a man's right to enjoy himself, a burden.
Nowhere in the review does it say that having more than one sexual partners is bad. Instead, the review posits the idea that the book is an attempt to draw attention upon the author, and is in a way a further symptom of why she indulged in so many sexual encounters.
The final point in the review was that it became boring to read the same thing over and over again.
This, I feel, is the main criticism of the book and that a little judicial editing may have been a good thing.
Just my view, and don't get too upset.
Btw, "broad"? Not a particularly brilliant term for a woman these days. This ain't the Forties, you know?

Posted by: frank (aka frank_247 aka the lone Scotsman) at February 15, 2010 8:13 PM

I too was born in the 1970's, but the attitude and approach to safe sex was different then, than today and I find it unfair to compare apples to oranges.

I think I'm confused about the point you're trying to make then. If the author, and the reviewer, and you and I, were all born in the 1970s, then what does the prevalence and scope of safe sex education *today* have to do with anything? We would all be working under the 70s sex ed ideals we grew up with then, correct? Although if the author did lose her virginity at 16 (is that correct, or an assumption we're working under?), then we're talking about 1986, and AIDS was a HUGE thing at the time, what with it having been discovered 5 years before and not much being known about it other than that it was deadly.

Either way, I hardly think you can consider this "apples to oranges". Granny Smith apples to Macintosh apples, perhaps.

Posted by: Anna von Beaverpuppet at February 15, 2010 8:15 PM

I was also born in 1970. I'm not cutting girlfriend any slack on this one. I sat in a high school health class at the ripe old age of 15 and learned about every STD known to humankind. AND the fact that condoms can prevent their spread.

And this was in a conservative suburb of Dallas in the mid-80s.

We all knew. And condoms were available. It's not as if STDs haven't been around since...humans. Come on. She didn't grow up in prehistoric times.

And I have to echo what AvB said: not all reviews are kind. Why would they be? So if I write a book and bare my soul, you have be kind when discussing the book? I would hope if it's a crappy book, that you wouldn't be kind just because I wrote a damn confessional.

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at February 15, 2010 8:35 PM

Although if the author did lose her virginity at 16 (is that correct, or an assumption we're working under?)

Whoops. I just chose that as a hypothetical, seeing that she was sexually active in high school.

Posted by: SaBrina at February 15, 2010 8:44 PM

So if I write a book and bare my soul, you have be kind when discussing the book? I would hope if it's a crappy book, that you wouldn't be kind just because I wrote a damn confessional.

Nope, not on your life. You all keep missing the point. It's not the fact the the review was unkind, that's irrelevant to the fact that this was a review of one womans undesirable lifestyle choices, not a review of how said woman wrote her memoirs.

The poor quality of this womans writing was never mentioned in the review, that was clarified much, much later in the comment section. At least it was clarified then.

Posted by: Maniak at February 15, 2010 9:45 PM

40 partners? Pfft. Poor woman is beating herself up about nothing. In the spirit of Kate the Great, my theoretical sexual memoirs shall henceforth be known as "Banging Around the World: The Carmen San Diego Story" (Vols 1-10) I also thought the tone of the review was rather morally superior.

Posted by: Carmensandiego at February 15, 2010 11:09 PM

Just to throw my two cents into the discussion:

I agree that when it comes down to it, 40 or even 100, is not really that big of a number nowadays, especially if you have been single and sexually active for a while. As someone pointed out, this would definitely not be a big deal if it were a man, and it shouldn't be for a woman. The problem with this, however, is that the author herself chose to title her book Loose Girl: A Memoir of Promiscuity, and then spends the rest of the novel talking about her self-destructive tendencies, equating sex and love. If she had come out and said, "I love sex and fucking, and that guy was hot so I hooked up with him," I would applaud her for it. However, it seems like the author herself chose to portray it as using sex as a substitute for love, and as result, it would be hard not to read this and keep thinking, hasn't she learned yet?

Having said that, I still don't know how comfortable I'd actually feel reading about someone's hookups with 40 or 50 separate people, be it a man or a woman. In fact, the book The Game really pisses me off, and I wonder what guys have to prove - to me it just seems like those kinds of books are more about having lots of sex partners to prove something to oneself, and less about enjoying sex.

Posted by: Jen K at February 16, 2010 7:33 AM

I personally dont care how many partners people have had as long as its safe and consenual then its their decision. I do have a problem with the sudden overflowing of memoirs written by people who feel we should have a larger interest in their life than is nessessary. Im sick of going into a book shop and having to troll through a multidude of books based on awful, horrific or just plain selfish histories of the author. Dont get me wrong there are some autobiographies I have thoroughly enjoyed and will read again but now it seems that the easiest way to get punlished in to unearth a childhood trauma, be a sex/drug/alcohol addict or have generally had a miserbale life.
I have my own problems I dont want to read about other peoples. Ill stick with my History books and Crime Fiction thanks.

Good review though.

Posted by: Nieve 'The Threadkiller Queen' at February 16, 2010 9:48 AM

I'm way late to this game, but I'm going to throw my 2 cents in anyway.
I don't put a lot of stock into the number of partners someone has (be it man or woman). People are starting earlier and single for much longer these days, and as sexuality becomes more open and acceptable in society, you're going to find that both men and women are going to get down with a lot more people than back in the day. I offer no opinion on the matter except to say to each his or her own.
However, that being said, there's nothing wrong with Nicole offering her opinion in this review. That's generally the point. Not everyone who reviews a book is going to enjoy the subject matter or have a glowing opinion of the author or the author's actions. Reviews, although put out there for the masses, are deeply personal. Which is why I try not to let reviews sway my opinion on something I know nothing about, and determine whether or not I'll read/watch/experience whatever it is.
Just as all of you are entitled to your own opinion of this book, this review, etc, Nicole is entitled to her opinion as well.
If you wanted an impartial plot summary, go somewhere else. Reviews are opinion based. That's the poing.

And RE: Snuggie, although your account of parents branding kids as "sluts" and "whores" is frightening, it's not at all surprising. Low self-esteem breeds animosity toward anyone who is perceived as being "better" than you in some way. What's sad is that these parents are taking their own self-loathing and teaching it to their own kids by mocking others without any basis. It's both sad and horrifying.

Posted by: Whorish Mouth at February 16, 2010 9:52 AM

Whorish Mouth Amen. To your entire post. Just amen.

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at February 16, 2010 10:16 AM

HAHAHA point, not poing. Although poing is way funnier. :)
Thanks Snuggie.

Posted by: Whorish Mouth at February 16, 2010 10:28 AM

RE youmademedoit:
"To judge someone by today's standards of 'safe sex' and your own moral compass is unjust. Ms. Cohen was born in 1970. The awareness and education of sexually transmitted diseases were not as prevalent then as they are now."

Um, so in 1990, she'd have been 20. AIDS started making news as a deadly STD in the mid-1980s. And before that, there was herpes, another incurable STD.

The fact is, indiscriminate, unprotected (ie, without a condom) sex is stupid. We're right to condemn it. If a man did the same thing, he'd get no piss-poor excuses about how he didn't know any better. If women are to be acknowledged as true adults, they have to take responsibility for their choices, good or bad, without whiny caveats about how it was the '90s or how it's wrong to judge people on how many sex partners they've had.

Book reviews are a judgment. If you don't like it, I suggest you don't read them.

Also, I judge people all the time. And I'm not apologizing for it, either. I judge people as stupid, or assholish or immature, etc. I don't care if it hurts their feelings. It's kind of the point, actually. I don't condemn the author's sexual activities, per se, but I also don't have to clap approvingly and say, "You go, girl!" Her behavior is sad. Even she acknowledges that.

Posted by: Slash at February 16, 2010 10:50 AM

late to the party too, but I'd like to add to the discussion about sex education: I was born in 1970 and had full, comprehensive sex ed. It's actually *worse* now than it was, what with all the abstinence only BS. I think we've really turned the clock back over the last 40 years; kids are actually less educated about disease and prevention.

sorry, but it infuriates me.

Posted by: banana at February 16, 2010 10:51 AM

I'd also like to echo the horror over snuggie's post about calling other people's daughters sluts. Good god. It makes me glad I have a son.

Posted by: banana at February 16, 2010 11:08 AM

I read this book and had a very similar reaction. I think what is off-putting about the first-person narrative is that it is written from the perspective of the author in present day, instead of from the author as she experiences things at the time. The distance from the events means that the text frequently reads as the sordid, sad sexual happening, then a sentence about what this meant, ie: "We had sex. This meant I had not yet overcome my insecurities." To me, this back and forth meant that you felt the sadness and pity for her adolescent persona, but it was immediately revoked by the present-day author telling us what it all MEANT. So I came to resent both the idiocrisy of the younger author as well as the overly explanatory, and therefore somewhat pretentious, additions from the author speaking from her better place in life now. Unlike, say The Glass Castle, which describes Jeannette Walls' childhood from the perspective of a child, so that the reader is able to make her own conclusions about the author's experiences, Loose Girl to me read as preachy.

I will say though, that I read this book several years ago when it was an advance copy from a publisher, and it has stuck with me. Some of the moments she describes from her youth I found to be so disheartening and troubling that I remember the passages now, even though like you I skipped along to the end when I tired of her sexual escapades. There is only so much you can read about a person making the same mistake over and over again.

Posted by: J at February 16, 2010 2:39 PM

Also to all the people commenting on the review who haven't read the book, the number may be 40, but firstly that does not include partners with whom she did not have sexual intercourse, and also does not reflect the amount of time she spent agonizing about sex. Having sex normally, having tons of partners: all that is great. Her situation was way, way different as she spent all of her time obsessing about it. The actual act and number of partners is somewhat irrelevant to how she struggled with her need for it.

Posted by: J at February 16, 2010 2:43 PM

J, your insight puts my review to shame. You said everything that I tried to put into words but couldn't. Thank you.

Posted by: Nicole at February 16, 2010 8:03 PM

Ugh I am so glad I went with my gut feeling and didn't buy this book. And 40 partners only? Because it sounds like more.

Posted by: Az at February 16, 2010 11:21 PM

Dont click the picture of the author up top!!! Its a virus!!!

Posted by: drew at April 23, 2010 5:13 PM

Hello, ive been checking out your posts for the last week or so now and decided it was time I comment to let you know that i have been really liking your posts - especially this one! thanks for always updating this website. I think others must enjoy it too :)

Posted by: bathroom clocks at August 31, 2010 1:41 AM

Hey. Thanks for this.. Glad I didn't buy this book! It looked interesting at first but now I'm not so sure.. Cheers and wish you all the best :)

Posted by: tattoo removal at September 15, 2010 1:26 AM

The weblog article author has a specified natural talent to describe definitely great topics. Reads the blog site is genuinely nice and you will find obviously a lot of regular site visitors. No wonder, with the great content. In any case, it was a pleasure to expend time in your blog and understand the intriguing post.

Posted by: Gayle Spoon at October 7, 2010 5:15 PM

That is my first time i take a look at here. I discovered so many amusing stuff with your weblog, specifically it's dialogue. From the many feedback on your posts, I'm assuming I'm not the just one getting all the leisure right here! Keep up the superb work.

Posted by: Antonio Agrios at October 7, 2010 5:32 PM

I'm delighted that I have identified this web site. Ultimately some thing not a crap, which we examine incredibly generally. The blog site is lovingly maintained and up to date. So it ought to be, thank you for this welcome transform.

Posted by: Krissy Talleut at October 7, 2010 5:37 PM

Most information sites frequently copy other blogs or sites of newspapers and magazines. Subscribe to this blog here I like that you'll find original articles that one could hardly uncover elsewhere. Thankfully, you can find nevertheless such information sites, please go on! I can no longer see the popular media. It can be there so much rubbish prepared, I bear it no much more quickly. A really pleasant blog site, regards.

Posted by: Verla Zobel at October 7, 2010 5:52 PM

Properly, What a crying shame we all cant be a towering pillar of virtue like Ms.Fuscia. How good it need to be to be so a lot much better than other folks. Fuscia reveals 1 character flaw of her individual right after one more. Nicely completed. I believe we have all discovered a great deal right here. As socalledonlycousins so aptly factors out, if this had been a guy recounting his escapades it would not be outstanding. By the intercourse-tally and the assessment.

Posted by: Tattoo removal at November 7, 2010 11:17 PM

Hi. First of all - great blog! Secondly this information was also good and interesting to read, but I don't think everything you have said is real truth. I will need to google about few things you have mentioned in your artcile to make sure. But anyway thanks for taking your time to write intresting artciles and good luck on writing other articles. P.S sorry for bad English, I aren't English native speaker.

Posted by: Kosmetika at December 15, 2010 12:23 PM

Uhm... I don't really know what to think... but I have a question I'd like to ask you in private, ideally by email. How can I reach you?

Posted by: Taren Seebaum at January 5, 2011 6:35 PM

Uhm... I don't really know what to think... but I have a question I'd like to ask you in private, ideally by email. How can I reach you?

Posted by: Lucia Welschmeyer at January 6, 2011 6:34 AM

Uhm... I don't really know what to think... but I have a question I'd like to ask you in private, ideally by email. How can I reach you?

Posted by: Page Lundby at January 6, 2011 10:43 AM

Uhm... I don't really know what to think... but I have a question I'd like to ask you in private, ideally by email. How can I reach you?

Posted by: forex trading signals at January 17, 2011 3:49 PM

Uhm... I don't really know what to think... but I have a question I'd like to ask you in private, ideally by email. How can I reach you?

Posted by: forex trading system at January 19, 2011 1:05 AM

Uhm... I don't really know what to think... but I have a question I'd like to ask you in private, ideally by email. How can I reach you?

Posted by: forex trading system at January 19, 2011 10:00 AM

Uhm... I don't really know what to think... but I have a question I'd like to ask you in private, ideally by email. How can I reach you?

Posted by: frontierville cheats at February 15, 2011 5:29 PM

Babies don't need a vacation, but I still see them at the beach... it pisses me off! I'll go over to a little baby and say 'What are you doing here? You haven't worked a day in your life!' -- Steven Wright

Posted by: york pa gyms at March 5, 2011 11:56 PM

You made some respectable factors there. I seemed on the internet for the problem and found most individuals will go along with along with your website.

Posted by: William at March 6, 2011 11:07 PM

That is what I am talking about. bookedmarked indeed!

Posted by: plastic surgeon online leads at March 11, 2011 12:50 PM

Between me and my husband we've owned more MP3 players over the years than I can count, including Sansas, iRivers, iPods (classic & touch), the Ibiza Rhapsody, etc. But, the last few years I've settled down to one line of players. Why? Because I was happy to discover how well-designed and fun to use the underappreciated (and widely mocked) Zunes are.

Posted by: Hipolito M. Wiseman at March 14, 2011 6:37 PM

*You should take part in a contest for one of the best blogs on the web. I will recommend this site!

Posted by: Hipolito Morgam at March 22, 2011 8:31 AM