‘The Big Debate: Should we contract our sex lives’ - Royal Court Theatre - Big Ideas Debate - March 2014

‘The Big Debate: Should we contract our sex lives,’ was a discussion amongst academics and play writers and their particular views of sexualizing partnership which took place at the Royal Court Theatre. This lively debate was organized following the theatre’s opening of the play, ‘The Mistress Contract’ by Abi Morgan. Libby Purves, presenter of BBC Radio 4 and columnist for The Times chaired the event and gave some interesting commentary to keep the debate’s juices flowing.

Alecky Blythe, the playwright for ‘The Girlfriend Experience’ drew on her interviews over the course of 18 months with self-made prostitutes from Eatbourne Brothel.  ‘Often these working girls felt they were relieving tensions through sex which was something absent at their client’s home’ and ‘keeping their marriages on track.’ As providers of conversation, hugs, sex and personality, Blythe also spoke of them as having distraught feelings and ‘broken cracks’ that came in cycles which was as hurtful as ‘splitting someone in half.’ Contracted sexual lives are evident here, but it was all a false hope based on how desirable they were to men, which they misconstrued as sexual empowerment. 

Professor Sophie Day, anthropologist at Goldsmiths (University of London) speaks from her ethnographic study during the 1980s. Much of the sex workers she had spoken to were realists and had a pragmatic approach towards their line of work which led some to believe, ‘when you say I do, it’s more of a promise… like a fairy tale romance of what might happen.’ When Day was asked about the debate, however she replied, ‘should we contract’ – I don’t know.’

Lynne Segal, Birkbeck University’s anniversary professor and academic in feminist theory and politics, had a slightly more aggressive take on the debate but gave an honest answer - ‘no.’ With much reference to Abi Morgan’s play and feminist philosopher, Simone de Beauvoir, she felt the mistress contract was an ‘illusion’ as she said, ‘ we, women are not here to titillate.’ She even spoke of female students today who become escorts to finance their education as a ‘worrying’ and ‘perilous’ act that should not be an option. 

 

(Left to Right: Purves, Day, Blythe, Segal and Tatchall)

Peter Tatchell, activist for LGBT, human rights and global justice based his judgments on his research in Thailand with male gay escorts who at their own free will prefer contracting their sex lives for earning potential compared to work at the rice fields. He suggests we abolish western practices and consider ‘flexible,’  ‘democratic’ and customized contracts that suit peoples’ circumstances extending to beneficiaries and next of kin which contracts them to certain ‘rights and responsibilities.’

There was a slightly rushed Q & A session that dealt with interesting topics including sex and the media, war and monogamy. A general consensus was not concluded on the debate, but from Blythe and Tatchell, they seemed fairly positive. To end the debate, Purves asked the audience a show of hands to those who ‘believe in monogamy… and to those who didn’t,’ and it was only a few wary hands that were left hanging at this point.

A Response to Alain de Botton ‏@alaindebotton Dating sites pretend to want to unite people, but in essence, they break them apart: http://www.philosophersmail.com/180314-relationships-match.php

Match.com has got it right and this fact is justified through the evidence. A high number of people, as much as 30% in 2010, who subscribed to the site found their marital partner yet how they came to finding them is not as clear cut as it would seem.

Match.com appears to put all your preferences through a filtering system that designates your profile with others, which matches yours. However, this is not the only way that members on the site have operated and used this. Match.com gives you the option to chose and search what to look for and there is much flexibility to be as ruthless or as lenient about the person you would like to meet.

Admittedly, as convenient it might be to meet someone who is your 'match', who likes to watch the same movies, read the same books or drink the same beers as you, these similarities are not enough to hold down a worthwhile relationship. Interests and hobbies work well in the short term as a temporary measure for a pleasant honey mood period, but it does not compensate for when it gets serious and house bills need to be paid, personal dramas develop and arranging child minders to look after the kids, for example.

It is an ideal to have someone who can match all your preferences whether it be personality, intellectual equivalent or simply interests alone. Compatibility is entirely separate thing and means more than associated interests. Compatibility is when one can structure a life around someone else who they genuinely care about and can see a future with. You can look at various examples in literature. Refer to Shakespeare's sonnets as he had much to say about love being blind (I am sure.) There is the prominent ‘Romeo and Juliet’ and what a mess considering the feud between their families. Another great example is the couple in Ian McEwan's 'Enduring Love' where the protagonist is an atheist scientist while is wife is his antithesis, an English literary academic that spends her time studying books of love and poetry by Keats. You may shake your head in disagreement and tell me that love stories are not true representations of reality, but one thing is certain and that is we do not chose who to love. Our emotions decide that (or chemical reactions, not pheromones, for the modern day scientist.)

There is a lot of value to be had from dating websites and match.com is just one option. Unfortunately, we also have to deal with the useless fakers on these sites but, there are obvious clues and alarm bells of those who take advantage looking for a fling or mere company. If one is head strong, they will see through the smoke screens and get out of the date fast. It is simple - if you don't think the person in front of you is compatible with you and even if it is your gut instinct, just walk away. You cannot rationalise a relationship nor can you calculate who you will be your perfect match. 

Perhaps, we should have a www.compatibility.com instead...