“Sexually uninhibited” is a phrase that rubs me the wrong way. Why? There’s nothing wrong with being sexually uninhibited, is there? I mean, what’s bad about being uninhibited at all, anyway?

One problem I see with the phrase, though I’m not sure how to avoid this, is that it implies that sexually inhibited is the norm. Otherwise, why would one even need to mention that they are sexually uninhibited? Of course, perhaps being sexually inhibited is the norm for most people in America, but doesn’t it seem like using words to describe oneself that reinforce harmful stereotypes is, well, harmful?

When taken literally, there’s nothing wrong with the phrase itself. What’s wrong is how it’s used, that is, it’s always used to describe women and never men. I mean, if I called myself “sexually uninhibited” (disregarding the accuracy or inaccuracy of that statement for just a moment), it would be weird. I mean, I’m a guy. Aren’t all guys sexually uninhibited?

First of all, fuck, no! Guys can be just as prudish as women can be. Sexual inhibitions have nothing to do with biological sex. This seems like it should be one of those “duh” moments for most people but for some reason it’s an “aha!” moment instead. (Kind of like the way some people are shocked to learn that boys have body-image issues, too, and that not all of us want to look like Tarzan or The Rock. The fact is, not all men are the same.)

I know I have some sexual inhibitions, like being decidedly uncomfortable with what most people call “casual sex.” Sussing out why is really hard, but the fact remains it’s clearly an inhibition. But just because you may be comfortable with “casual sex” doesn’t necessarily mean you’re uninhibited, because what if this one-night stand of yours wants you to go down on her, and suddenly you realize you’re not comfortable doing that (for whatever reason). In this case, this example person is comfortable performing one kind of sexual act but not another. Can he be considered sexually uninhibited, then?

Secondly, what does being sexually uninhibited even mean? The words literally mean uninhibited in matters of sex, which should simply imply doing what you want to do in a relaxed and natural way, that is, free of inhibitions. Instead, however, it’s often used to mean promiscuous, “slutty,” indiscriminately sexual. In this way, the usage of the phrase is tied to amounts of sex rather than choices regarding sex.

This is a really big mistake, and I’m not just talking quality over quantity here. Having inhibitations or the lack thereof are directly related to doing what feels right, and twisting that into a measure of how much sex one might be having completely destroys any hope of self-empowered decision-making. Everyone’s probably pretty familiar with how this impacts women—the virgin slut double standard, the inseparable association of female sexuality with money, and on and on—but do as many people see how it impacts men?

Since men are supposed to be sexually uninhibited anyway, being inhibited at all is always seen as a problem, when in fact it may not be. Sometimes inhibitions, especially when they are thoughtful and voluntary, are very important protective mechanisms. It becomes very difficult for many men to say no to sex (such as in this funny example), even though they may not feel comfortable with the situation. They feel that doing so would challenge their sexual orientation (“must be gay”), or their gender identity.

Socializing generations of men who can’t say no to sex is just as bad as socializing generations of women who can’t say yes. It gives nobody the freedom of making their own choices.

Moreover, what is sexual in such a context? One of the problems with the way sex is understood today is that it only applies to a very narrow definition, even in alternative sexuality communities like BDSM. This was made most public as far as I can tell during the Monica Lewinsky sex-scandal, in which a debate over what actually constituted sex was the national headline for a year (a year!). Everyone was asking everyone else, “Did a blowjob count as sex? What do you think counts as sex?” The only good thing about this discussion was that it was actually about having sex.

Personal opinion aside, the point remains that the whole fucking country (literally) was trying to standardize on some idea of what sex is or what it isn’t, as though we’d have eventually come up with a good definition that everyone can agree on and then things would be simple from then on. Well, sorry to break it to you, but sex isn’t that simple.

This is all a symptom of the ignorant belief that sex can be defined solely by activities (what people do) instead of also being informed by intent (why they do it). Once again, sex and education prove to be the two topics that otherwise smart people behave in very stupid ways about, because ask any educated person what the difference between manslaughter and murder are and they’ll tell you it’s intent without a second thought. What they won’t be able to tell you as easily is that so too can intent define a sexual act and separate from something else, like, say, rape, which is an act of violence, not an act of sex. (As an aside, here is an interesting anecdote regarding the rape-as-violence theory: Also, rapists aren’t necessarily driven by sexual desire; a lower sex drive won’t prevent attacks that are motivated by a desire for power. This quote from Castration Anxiety: Can A Sex Offender Still Have Sex After Surgery?.)

And yet, even in the S&M community, fond of its pain-as-sexual-pleasure activities and which should be aware of this fact better than most, there are still debates about what sex is, what it isn’t, and why that is so, only rarely ever acknowledging the vast diversity in the kinds of sex people actually have. BDSM isn’t sex, we’re fond of saying, it’s something “more.” That’s just another way of saying, “it’s something else.”

Sounds to me like quite a few self-professed “sexually uninhibited” people have quite a ways to go before they are as free of their sexual inhibitions as they say they are, is all I’m sayin’.