Today Sat Sun
It is forcast to be Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on May 25, 2012
Thunderstorm
31°/17°
It is forcast to be Partly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on May 26, 2012
Partly Cloudy
22°/18°
It is forcast to be Mostly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on May 27, 2012
Mostly Cloudy
22°/15°

13 Comments

news

Sex and Our City: A Grey Ol’ Time

What’s better than sex? Maybe writing about sex. Sex and Our City is a special week-long series that looks for questions and answers about love and sex in our city.
2008_05_27_Sex_2.jpg
Photo by Just-Us-3.
In Toronto, a birthday celebration often isn’t complete without hearing the drunken whines of “I’m so old” (as the table scrambles to find their IDs to order beer). However, we’re taking longer to do the things that are associated with getting older: we put off marriage, property ownership, reproduction. It’s one thing to joke about being old; it’s another to have the proof suckling at your chest. Old appears to be a four letter word that signals the end of excitement and the start of routine.


Nearly every article written about the Sex and the City movie inevitably mentions the age of Kim Cattrall, who plays sexually liberated Samantha. She’s 51! we’re told, with the exclamation point being the equivalent of the (usually male) writer vomiting all over his monitor. The magic number 50 appeared again with the release of Madonna’s new album. The focus was on her album cover—distasteful for someone months from 50. Isn’t it time for old Madge to be put out to pasture, people asked, as if it were a kindly gesture to ship her off to Platonic Point, where men and women of a certain age knit, play gin rummy, and essentially have the portion of the brains where romance and love reside lobotomized.
What is it about 50 that gets under our skin? At a time when this generation of 50-somethings will be the richest—consider that people over 50 control 77% of all Canadian wealth—and healthiest yet, why is age still one big Viagra joke? In school, we learned that the number 50 in math is normally associated with half, as in 50% off or a 50-50 chance. Could we be subconsciously seeing the number as the point in life when the glass becomes half empty instead of half full? Why is 50 a failing grade for romance and sex?
2008_05_27_Sex.jpg
Photo by Patrick Q.
It’s easy to suggest that the fear of 50 comes from our inability to face our mortality. But if we as a society are happily in a Peter Pan phase and never wanting to grow old, why aren’t we frolicking carefree while we’re young? Instead, we are hyper-concerned about aging: 20-somethings apply masks, serums, and tonics to prevent even the slightest wrinkle and instead of worrying about 30, we’ve graduated to worrying about 25, because after that age you can start rounding up. If it were just about our impending death, the difference between 25 and 30 wouldn’t be an issue. And as science and lifestyle choices become better, we should see inflation in The Point Of No Return: say, up to 55, or 60. Instead, 50 holds firm. There has to be something more at hand.
When discussing the topic of geriatric sex, a friend suggested that the source might be a lot closer than expected: the Parents Factor. For most people in their 20s and 30s, their parents are steadily approaching retirement age—and no one wants to think of their parents having sex, no matter how stunningly Kim Cattrall has aged. There’s a pressure to do things that are “young” before we effectively become our parents: no one wants to think of their naughty bits at that age, as another friend put it ever so suavely. It also explains why we attack geriatric sex: isn’t sex the domain of the young? (Back off, cougars! Sex is for cubs only!) If the so-called “zoomers” (boomers with zip—coined by head zoomer Moses Znaimer) have sex, the thinking goes, it acts as a sort of attack on our youth. We then sabotage ourselves by putting pressure—a kind of ticking time bomb—onto ourselves: live hard and fast now, because tomorrow only gets uglier.
Except it’s not true. After 50, you don’t fall off the cliff like the yodeller from The Price Is Right. We may not want to think about it, but seniors are having sex. In a survey published in the New England Journal of Medicine, nearly three-quarters of respondents aged 57 to 64 had sex in the last year. Dating sites have established sections for older people to meet other singles. (A site like Gray and Gay can be reassuring when Gay Years are almost as unforgiving as Dog Years.)
2008_05_27_Sex_3.jpg
Photo by adwriter.
When you think about it, there are some advantages to being older and still engaging in love. Experience. A new availability of partners. Lower inhibitions. Seniors can be more comfortable with their sexuality and willing to experiment, says Robyn Taylor [video] of the G-Spot Boutique. She noticed that seniors would come in groups to shop at her store, but often found it embarrassing to talk about their sexual needs. Sex is still a taboo subject seniors are scared to talk about—sadly, this includes to their doctors, which results in less safe sex education.
Perhaps the fear isn’t exclusive to seniors. Maybe we’re scared too and psyching ourselves out about 50. We’re expecting the worst, but hoping for the best. In that light, isn’t it almost inspiring to realize that love isn’t limited by time? If we don’t find love (or we lose the love we’ve found) in our 20s, 30s, or 40s, it’s reassuring to know that shipment to Platonic Point isn’t mandatory. It’d be depressing to think if the alternative was true, since looking for companionship and a connection with another person is something with which we can universally relate regardless of age. On the television show Golden Girls, the titular characters could speak more honestly (and provocatively) about relationships because of their ages; there’s an opportunity to broaden the conversation on sex, romance, and love that we shouldn’t let ageism take away. We’re the young, open-minded, and explorative generation right? So, when we hear that from a sample of Americans aged 57 to 85, half of men and a quarter of women masturbate whether or not they have a sexual partner, if we squirm, don’t we reveal ourselves—regardless of our youth—as the true fuddy-duddies?

CORRECTION: MAY 29, 2008
This article originally said that “the actresses [on Golden Girls] could speak more honestly (and provocatively) about relationships because of their ages.” The word “actress,” while not wholly incorrect to use when referring to a female actor, is also not gender-neutral, as “actor” is; as such, the latter term is always preferable to the former. Moreover, the characters, not the actors playing them, are the ones speaking “honestly (and provocatively) about relationships.” Torontoist has changed the sentence so that it refers to the “the titular characters” of Golden Girls, rather than the “actresses.” We apologize for the error, and will continue to strive to use gender-neutral language.

Filed under: , , , , ,

Report error Send a tip

Comments

  • Steph

    Great article.

  • Ellstar

    I’m confused. You say this post is about the big 50, but instead focus on seniors (which according to our government is 65+)or calling those 57-64 seniors and posting pictures of seniors.
    Nice message, but it’s a bit confused.

  • Jaime Woo

    No need to be confused. While you’re right that 65 is a common definition for “senior citizen,” senior can also refer to people who are elderly or old. Keep in mind that many associations for older people use 50.
    The point is that 50 is a scary age for many people. But well beyond 50, say from 57 to 64, the message is clear: people are still sexual and in relationships.

  • Jenelle DaSilva-Rupchand

    Longest. Lede. Ever.
    “Actress” is a sexist word.
    lol at “After 50, you don’t fall off the cliff like the yodeller from The Price Is Right” though.

  • Ellstar

    I just don’t think many people identify 50 as being too old for sex or..well..anything, especially not these days.
    65? You could draw up some arguments, but 50 is a bit low to be gently reprimanding and ‘informing’ us that yes, 50-somethings indeed are people too.

  • David Topping

    I’ve appended a correction to the post, concerning the use of the term “actresses.”

  • x_the_x

    I didn’t see any disclosure in the “we will henceforth correct our errors” post that the correction box would be used to cleanse language of meaningful distinctions (assuming you accept that there is a difference between a male and a female, which I understand is a very unpopular idea).

  • Gloria

    The odd thing is that many people I’ve encountered tend to assume actors are men — so, in that way, it’s not really gender-neutral.
    x_the_x, the difference between a male and female may be particularly importance when it comes to say, medical issues, but when it comes to simply stating “people whose profession is acting”, there is no pertinent reason to include their sex. It’d be as puzzling as describing an actor as “brown-haired” when it’s not particularly relevant (although yeah, many celebrity interviews tend to soak up excessive details like that).

  • Gloria

    (Although, personally, I wouldn’t go so far as to call it “sexist.” Using it when it’s not relevant is certainly sloppy journalism though.)

  • x_the_x

    I’m going to suggest that maybe the people you’ve “encountered” who erroneously and in a totally politically incorrect and lamentable way associate the term “actors” with men might do so because the majority of the english speaking world continues to use that term to refer to men exclusively. Or maybe I’m just reinforcing our patriarchal herstory.
    I’m also going to suggest that their is a descriptive economy is the term “actress” that is rather clumsily captured in the alternate phrase “female actor” or, as used here, “the titular characters [of Golden Girls]“.
    [The editor is free to italicize girls for maximum profundity]
    In other words, maybe it be easier if we didn’t try so hard to be offended by everything.

  • Robin Rix

    I tend to agree with Gloria. Let’s use “sexist” when we’re talking about the truly evil occurrences of sexism in the world, rather than devaluing its force by hauling it out for every minor (and, in this case, innocently made) infraction.

  • David Topping

    I agree that the usage of the term “actresses” here, to refer to a group of female actors, was not sexist (that is, according to the OED, “The assumption that one sex is superior to the other and the resultant discrimination practised against members of the supposed inferior sex”), and we are not declaring a site-wide ban on the word “actress” (nor will we whitewash all the past instances we’ve used it).
    The correction reads that “the word ‘actress,’ while not wholly incorrect to use when referring to a female actor, is also not gender-neutral, as ‘actor’ is; as such, the latter term is always preferable to the former….[we] will continue to strive to use gender-neutral language.” Which is very much the case; we’re going to do what we can, but in the end it will be up to the individual writer of an article as to whether or not to use the word. (Specificity is likely to be the metric for acceptable use here: calling a specific group of women who act “actresses” when that fact is important to an article is not the same as calling all firefighters “firemen.”) The issue has generated a ton of private discussion between Torontoist staff, and everyone is aware of it and watching out for it.

  • Gloria

    x_the_x, I’m not really sure what’s “up” with your use of quotation marks, but anyway … I’m not exactly sure if we’re agreeing or disagreeing, as my original point was that “actor” is not that neutral, so I don’t see why it ought to be considered or used that way (i.e. describing both men and women). It might be defined that way, but it’s more useful to recognize the difference between a word’s paper definition and its usage in reality.
    Anyway, I’m much more interested this in debate for its social and semantic than its political aspects. I sense I’m probably less offended than you are. Maybe you shouldn’t try so hard to be offended by people who are offended.