I disagree with most of their attitude. We don't need innocence. We don't need sexual mystery. We don't need to eliminate teen sex. We don't need to re-establish some limiting, patriarchal "manly ideal." But they've got one thing right: we do need to start talking about sex as something that is not mostly mechanical -- as something that, yes, can be "a private sphere for the creation of human meaning.” 3. L wish I'd learned this: "Good sex doesn't just require two (or more) people who like sex. It requires desire -- and desire simply doesn't work the same way for everyone." I've said before that I went through a period -- back when I was first becoming sexually active -- where I simply could not figure out why sexual acts with people I didn't care about didn't seem to turn me on. Or rather -- they turned me on a little, but not... much. It took me a while to understand that sex requires more than just two eager people. It requires attraction and desire. When I was fifteen or so, and at summer camp, I remember making out with a boy. I didn't really want to make out with him, but I wasn't sure how to reject him (more on this under point 5). And I figured: he seems nice enough, so I might as well make out with him. Afterwards, I felt angry at myself, and I felt like I'd wasted my time -- and I felt confused. I'd been bored at best and repulsed at worst, and I wasn't sure why I felt that way, or why I'd done something that made me feel that way. So why had I done it? Because I'd thought: "Sex is value-neutral." Because I'd thought: "Making out is fun, right? -- that means I ought to do it when I get the chance!" Because I'd thought: "My preference not to make out with him is probably just some silly repression that I need to get over." Because I didn't understand that desire is complicated, that you can't just make yourself feel desire when it's convenient, and that you don't need a reason for your attractions -- or lack of attraction. This situation was to reprise its