Mid 20s HR professional Catherine finds herself in the perfect relationship. Hunky Lee is gorgeous and devoted and protective. Apparently he’s everything a woman could want in a bloke.
At least until he proves himself to be a bit psycho.
Suddenly what initially looks like commitment seems smothering; the sex that once felt all new and exciting and spontaneous feels a whole lot like rape.
Think Sleeping With The Enemy, although a bit deeper and a lot less Julia Roberts.
Like all of the books I tend to crow about, Elizabeth Haynes' Into the Darkest Corner can spawn any number of juicy conversations.
On one level, it raises some really worthwhile conversations about consent. The crazy boyfriend turns up at 3am and Catherine opens her door to him. They have sex, it was rough, she was in pain during – and afterwards – and at no point did she say no. Was it rape?
Equally worth discussing – and unusual for a crime novel – the book spotlights that hard-to-confront reality that the bloke in her bed is far more likely to be a woman’s real source of threat than any “man in the bushes”.
A third issue exploits my fascination with “emotional work”: those labours women too often do to keep relationships functional. In numerous scenes Catherine tries to calm down the abusive Lee; to try and make him feel better about his bastardry. Awful to read but worse to acknowledge that this women-making-everything-okay-in-spite-of-themselves nonsense feels very bloody familiar.
Three fascinating topics to discuss, but I’m going to focus on a fourth.
A debate Catherine has with herself during an early split with Lee is whether the sex – sex she considered, at least initially, as great – was grounds for reconciliation. For perseverance.
Admittedly, its very tempting to devote this entire post to defining good sex.
For Catherine it was sex with variety: each time with Lee was different and she quite liked that. At least to begin with. I’m not sure I’d prioritise variety so highly, but for this post let’s keep the definition simple: good sex is the Snickers-type; sex that really satisfies whichever way “satisfies” gets defined.
By the time Catherine debates this question, Lee has already demonstrated his bad-boyfriend attributes: he’s snuck into her place and rearranged things to disorient her, he’s toyed with a little light stalking and he’s had the kind of sex with her that I’d consider brutal.
So when is good sex enough to compensate for a bad relationship?
Can a few evenings of the good stuff compensate for all those less good times?
How good does the sex have to be for it to act as a relationship panacea?
Certainly for me the presence of sex – regardless of the degrees of satisfaction – is a dealbreaker. While I’m sure there are relationships that are are functional – are satisfying – sans sex, I’m not particularly interested in one.
So on one level I’m completely convinced that you can’t get everything you want or need from one person. To assume that your partner can satisfy all of your intellectual/emotional/physical needs is setting yourself up for failure.
With that in mind then, if I can have fantastic conversations with my friends, vent to them, seek solace from them, go out and have fun with them, then what’s the one thing – the one dealbreaker – that I should want from a partner?
What’s the one thing – the only thing – that in most relationships would be considered unacceptable to source outside of the dyad?
Sex.
So shouldn’t this be grounds to prioritise good sex over pretty much everything else?
It seems logical and yet I’m not so sure.
A friend and I often discuss the mind/body split in sex: she’s very apt at what writer Erica Jong termed the zipless fuck; she can do it recreationally, just for fun, without all the head chaos. I can’t. I’m seduced by good conversation, by intimacy and I can’t indulge in any kind of sex without an emotional investment.
For me, if the relationship is bad – if there’s no trust or if outside of the bedroom it all feels strained and lonely – then for me good sex means little.
So what can good sex compensate for?
Equally worth asking, how fantastic does a relationship need to be to compensate for bad sex? If the coupling is warm and trusting and romantic, does it really matter if the sex is all a bit crap?
If the sex is lacklustre – if you could take or leave it – then just how important is it really?
Into The Darkest Corner is an engaging read raising important issues about sexual madness and OCD, manipulation and exit strategies. More so, it puts on the agenda questions about prioritising sex and querying the role of quality in comparison to all our other relationship priorities.
Misha Ketchell
Managing Editor at The Conversation
I wonder who'll be brave enough to comment on this one? Rather a personal topic -- the trade off between quality sex and a good relationship. Thing is, I don't see how it is a trade off. I think in most cases the two probably go together.
Lauren Rosewarne
Senior Lecturer at University of Melbourne
A personal topic perhaps... probably... definitely… Although surely the picture of Mr T lightens the load somewhat? ;)
Fred Pribac
logged in via email @internode.on.net
Your articles always trip my internet content filters.
But seriously ... this question need not be framed in terms of physical viloence or even sex ... I think many folks put up with all sorts of manipulative crap and abusive relationship patterns, and for a lot longer than they otherwise might, as long as there is some perceived counter factor that keeps them there. Sex is only one of a long list of relationship currencies.
Lauren Rosewarne
Senior Lecturer at University of Melbourne
That's my primary consideration: tripping internet filters so people can't read my posts ;)
Anyhow, I agree with you: for some people the currency is sex, for others it's security or status or cash or love or property or children.
Addy
logged in via Twitter
I've never understood people who rate sex so high in terms of relationship deal breakers.
In my opinion the best sex is born out of love, not lust. It is the endless nights whispering sweet nothings into your partner's ear or before-work quickies that leave butt prints of the person you want to spend the rest of your life with in the pancake batter spilled over the kitchen counter.
We're conditioned to believe sex should always be perfect from the word go. That if it turns out to be more like…
Read moreDale Bloom
Analyst
Well, I remember listening on the radio recently to two feminist tarts whinging about men (as they would and should), and they were also whinging about men in advertising, and whinging about what men wanted women to buy, and whinging about how men designed things.
Now, they were asked what things they liked the most, and both said they liked their cars, and one said she also liked her mobile phone, which she said was BETTER THAN SEX.
Ironically, the whinging feminist tarts didn’t realise their cars and mobile phones were most likely designed by men.
However, to keep women or feminists satisfied, they may have to be given cars, and also mobile phones, and of course no one should be expecting them to pay for it.
chris matthews
mediator
Quite frankly I never feel like sex if my partner has been a shit. I'd rather masturbate, as a comic whose name I can't remember said, "you meet a better class of person that way."
Dennis Alexander
logged in via LinkedIn
Dale, it suddenly struck me that your collocation of "whinging", "feminist" and "tarts" as a descriptive string has some interesting semantic and pragmatic implicatures. I've heard men and Germaine Greer call some women "whinging feminists" and a few "feminist tarts" from men and Bronwyn Bishop and a few "whinging tarts" from over 50s misogynist men, but I cannot recall hearing the full string. Have you taken up writing for Alan Jones as a second occupation? Sorry, more seriously, it is an interesting string full of internal contradictions in etymologies and histories and probably quite rare outside of certain circles circumscribed by age, relationship history and sexual orientation. It's regular usage would almost certainly affect the outcome of assessing Lauren's central question differentially for some groups as opposed to others.
Arthur James Egleton Robey
Industrial Electrician
Ye God. What am I doing here? Somebody writes the word SEX and here I am, wasting my time.
Has any actually read the Limits to Growth report?
Do you understand the implications?
I have got to get my hand off my willie.
Dale Bloom
Analyst
I was going to write "two fat whinging feminists", but I thought I would leave that to imagination, and I wouldn't want to sterotype.
Emma Anderson
Artist and Science Junkie
Uhm, actually if you keep your hand on your willie, you won't be contributing to overpopulation.
But may I suggest choosing recycled, lest this activity contribute to deforestation instead.
Craig Minns
Self-employed
Another interesting piece, Lauren. I'll firstly take you to task on one of your throwaway lines: the man in her bed may be a bigger threat to her than a stranger, but that threat isn't very large, despite the way some feminist orthodoxy tries to portray it.
Now, to more interesting matters.
I'm with you on the whole bit about sex as part of a larger interplay of emotional and intellectual connections. I've been a serial monogamist for that reason, although in my youth there were a few one…
Read moreLauren Rosewarne
Senior Lecturer at University of Melbourne
Thanks for taking the time to comment so extensively. I am of course, going to resist taking the bait on pretty much all of your points because my rebuttals are too obvious.
To clarify one point: my point on domestic violence wasn't a "throwaway" line - it is line with statistics on violence against women. At no point did I contend that every woman is a likely victim, rather – and more simply - that statistically her partner is a bigger threat than a stranger.
Craig Minns
Self-employed
Yes Lauren, you chose to make a denigratory comment about men generally that wasn't relevant to the discussion. It is trivially true, but the fact that most women never experience such violence is also trivially true. Why do you find that so confronting as to require a rather huffy comment?
Which "all" of my points did you think I was "baiting" you on? Are you unable, as a professional commentator, to disentangle your feminist predilections from your professional oeuvre? If so, I'm disappointed., but it does tend to support my point about women being "primed to take offence [at] tiny things that get blown out of proportion", don't you think?
It would be nice to hold a discussion with a woman on these pages that doesn't devolve into such faux-offence. Surely if my views are wrong, rather than offering a different interpretation of the same data, then you should be able to show me the error of my ways - not simply take your bat and ball and walk off in a huff.
Lauren Rosewarne
Senior Lecturer at University of Melbourne
If you'd like to construe it as huff, please do so. By all means. My take on it however, would be that I simply don't need to – not for ego and not for reputation maintenance - to engage with a back-and-forth with you on issues related to stereotypes and feminist-hating and sizeism. I simply don’t think it's worthwhile, entertaining or even vaguely challenging to go through all your bizarre accusations and draw your attention to the spots in my piece where I didn't make any such comments.
I am simply going to consider your commentary and let you and Dale Bloom talk amongst yourselves.
Best of luck with your day.
Craig Minns
Self-employed
Thanks Lauren, I will construe that as a huff.
As for stereotypes, I'll point out that one challenging your stereotypes is me. I haven't actually presented any of my own. What a shame you feel so unable to rise above such stereotyping and hold a proper discussion.
The sad thing is that I find your pieces intriguing. They generally offer some points that are worth considering. If only you were up to dealing with critique in a professional manner I'd be a huge fan.
Craig Minns
Self-employed
Oh, just by the way, Lauren, you promote this page as an academic view of pop culture. Is that just the culture you like, or does your vision of academic endeavour manage to encompass ideas you find uncomfortable?
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
One of the more strange aspects of "good sex" is that it's rather hard to define isn't it? All a bit subjective really. Men it seems are supposed to be "good at it" - or they are not. All other aspects of a relationship are open to negotiation and improvement. But good sex it appears is either there or not.
One of the things that has astounded me in my strange life is the way that women discuss sex - and you suggest this above Ms R yourself - the most intimate details are up for peer review…
Read moreLauren Rosewarne
Senior Lecturer at University of Melbourne
When I talk about “good policy” to my students, I define it as policy that meets its objectives; that does what it set out to do. I think it’s the same with sex. If your purpose of having it is about having an orgasm, then if you don’t get that orgasm, you’ll find it unsatisfying. But not everyone defines good sex that way. For some it will primarily be about quality time, about intimacy, about closeness, about touch, and thus very good sex could in fact be had without orgasm.
Anyhow, I don’t…
Read morePeter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
I wouldn't be too sure on that Ms R... I suspect it is heavily gendered myself and probably aged as well. I'd also suspect it is about the commodification of sex within a relationship and beyond by which I mean the objectification of it as a thing in itself... something that is there or something that is not, that has objective outcomes ... and if not - it is his or her fault or failing - not the reporter. This is not a self-critical analysis we're talking about here by any means. And to be honest…
Read moreArthur James Egleton Robey
Industrial Electrician
From one cynical old bastard to another, most don't even know why they do the dreadful deed.
Consider the tigress.
She has to approach a much larger obligate carnivore and expose the back of her neck to him in order for what? What on earth can posses her to commit such a suicidal pose?
How about drugs? Would mommy nature stoop to pushing drugs in order to get babies? You Betcha.
New Scientist published a set of experiments that showed that females are dependent not so much on the organism for their happiness but at least 4 known mood enhancing drugs in male semen. Females are designed to run the risk of pregnancy.
The emotional high lasts 3 days, exactly the same length of time that sperm remain viable in the female.
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
I remember watching a couple of spiders in a web "making love"... she was the size of a 50 cent piece, he was the size of a match head. No sooner was the romantic interlude concluded than she seized him with great affection, snapped off his head and started wrapping him up for afters. .. maybe the kiddies' first solid snack. Nature - it's an appalling business isn't it? Nothing natural about it at all really.