Does pleasure feel like a free lunch?

[Jacob]

So recently I was in France and it was amazing (among a load of unrelated problematic stuff) how some topics seem to be treated in a healthier way.

I guess the main one I noticed is just how much more accepting folks are of kindness or stuff with inherent value like art or culture.

I notice that often the opposite is true here in the UK, and from what I know of being in many parts the USA. I have had friends who are so apologetic about having little money, that they won't accept a friend buying them lunch, or would avoid socialising because of it. I had one ex house mate who would ask the other house-mates, on the principle of fairness, to pay penies to split the cost of milk he got for the house (the rest of us would just buy it without thinking). And while in france the idea that someone is an artist is met with amazement, my friends here would say stuff like "oh I'm just study art because i can't get a real job" and appologetic stuff like that... and I think it carries through into sex and sexuality.

For me this comes down to 'there ain't no such thing as a free lunch' thinking. The idea that we should be instantly be suspicious of anything that claims to be inherently good.

Does this strike a chord with anyone?

I've got to say I really have to try hard to switch off a bit of my head that says there'll be a downside to having a fun hookup or worrying that some sort of exchange must have to take place.

[DulceDiva]

We must always asses the risks. In terms of general attitude other countries are much more relaxed than the US.

[kabith]

I can understand that. I feel like in our culture (at least here in the US), there IS this idea that everything must be bought and paid for. Some people believe it more than others. I had a friend who was similar to your ex-housemate, who asked for small change for groceries. She was also extremely uncomfortable with the idea of me buying her lunch for her birthday, after we had been friends for almost two years. It took me 15 minutes trying to explain to her that she in no way owed me anything, and that it made me feel good as a person to treat other people that I like to lunch on their birthdays. We eventually had to compromise with the idea that she would take me out for my birthday in the future. I am not sure if she felt like it impeded on her independence, or created an obligation, or what. But she was uncomfortable with it, and we found a solutions that made us both feel good.

I am not sure why it is so ingrained in our brains here, that everything has a price. When I visited Rome, I was treated with kindness from complete strangers almost every day. Whenever I sat with an Italian family at dinner I always got a free drink or dessert, and they just pretended I was part of their family (usually this was accompanied with broken English or pictures on a smart phone to try and include me in the conversations they were having). They never asked me for my phone number, or an email, or even a photograph, they were just pleased to share their company and culture with a curious outsider. I wonder if it has to do with a community verses an individualistic culture. Meaning, here "every man for himself," where as in other cultures, it literally takes a village to raise the child.

I think it is fair to be cautious though. Regardless of culture, "kindness" and "generosity" are used by predators to manipulate their pray into feeling like they owe something. I think that knowledge makes it incredibly hard to just have a "fun hookup" without wondering if it could turn sour any moment because someone feels entitled.

Just me spewing some thoughts, I hope they contribute to the conversation

[Casey]

Yeah, American culture is sometimes anti-pleasure. I think it's because the first European colonizers were Puritans, who thought most pleasurable things were sins.

Also, the individualism. Maybe that comes because the first settlers had to venture West on their own, and pretty much it was "every man for himself". Even people who have had great help in getting where they are, claim they did it all on their own. We aren't supposed to admit to getting help, or to ask for help either. And we seem to expect only one person (the mother) to raise all children. We also like a lot of personal space (when I was in Europe I felt very uncomfortable with all the hugging, kissing, and standing way too close to me that everyone did). And we expect our kids to all sleep in their own beds, or even their own rooms, which I think is pretty unusual.

I've often felt frustrated with our culture, but at the same time when I went to places that I thought had a better one, I became very homesick and didn't adapt well to it at all. Like, I feel like I didn't get enough hugs and kisses in my life, but getting them from people I just met didn't really fill the need I felt. And I felt very uncomfortable with everyone giving me "free lunches" as well. I am just too American, whether I want to be or not!

[Jacob]

This is so interesting...

Casey, do you think that affects the way you feel about the intimacy you do want to be having? Or do you get to combine it?

I think with puritanism, you're spot on. I feel like the English speaking world is all really affected by puritanism. Even when people aren't as religious these ethics can survive. Also interestingly, the Germans, The Nords and the English are kinda the big protestants on the block and do tend to have less kissy/huggy/pleasure stereotypes than Greece, Italy, Spain & France, and were evidently were the ones doing their puritan thing whilst evolving into the USA!

I guess also as well as what you say about how pleasurable stuff was viewed as sin... Sin/pleasure works in a specific way in puritanism, in that it is always there and it all adds up and god can see it in your head. In other traditions it seems your mind or imagination is a private space, and what counts is physical acts, and how they're viewed by communities & institutions... I don't think that is so healthy either, (especially if the history of abuse at and by the catholic church is anything to go by).

So I actually think it's pretty good to question how automatically some people might feel like 'generosity' is fine... (I know some situations where I've found it really overbearing, and a way of showing off patriarchal power, from my middle-eastern family), or that you can just hug and kiss someone, because that's all OK apparently... So I wouldn't call it 'too American'!

I suppose for me the problem is when we view all pleasure with suspicion, rather than favouring the whole of a different culture.

[Jacob]

Good points about potential predators 'using' kindness kabith. That is such a sad fact to add to this. I hadn't really thought about that.

And with community, and trust, that's really interesting too, because a village is really and old sort of settlement... which in most places, including north america, tend to be a lot older than the USA as a state.

[Casey]

Jacob, I'm not sure how it affects the intimacy I do want, since I don't really see my culture from the "outside"... I am pretty touchy-feely-huggy with friends and lovers and pets. But how intimate and close I feel with someone emotionally tends to relate to how close I am willing to have them sit or stand next to me. I have almost no physical boundaries with my partner, we snuggle and hold hands and sit close together. My dogs have a little more boundaries, then my friends have more, etc. Strangers who stand too close to me makes me very uncomfortable (Americans only stand close on a packed bus or elevator, and even then we are reluctant). For me, in US, the only time people besides friends or lovers stood very close to me it was men who were trying to corner me to harass or molest me. When I was in Europe people just stood that close to me just to chat... I kept stepping back to get some space and they would keep stepping forward. It was very strange. They also would touch me much more, and of course, the kissing greeting. (As someone with OCD the kiss greeting was very hard for me!) In Asia everyone wanted to touch my hair. I have no idea if that's a culture thing, or just because my hair is weird, lol.

In relation to what kabith said, I know some people are really paranoid about favors having strings attached or that people will be using them at every opportunity. I think they often have reason to feel that way - people have taken advantage of them and they are trying to protect themselves. It can be hard to find a balance between kindness and letting people use you.

[Heather]

I have to tell you, I keep feeling very stumped with this because I think I keep getting caught on the idea that free lunch is a BAD thing! As someone who grew up poor, when we got free lunch -- either from school or from the hospital where my Mom worked -- it was a very good thing, and something that made me happy. Especially since sometimes a lack of free lunch meant no lunch at all!

So, free lunch = awesome in my experience, whether it's about sex (which I also have generally experienced and ideally frame as something that is pleasure without cost or hidden agenda) or actually about lunch. Thusly, I keep metaphorically standing around scratching my head with this post, because I feel very lost by the underlying concept!

[Redskies]

Trying to explain a bit for Heather and anyone else puzzled:

"There's no such thing as a free lunch". That's a fairly well-known phrase in Britain - is it elsewhere, too? And I think that's the point: the "free lunch" you're getting Isn't free. You will pay for it, with something, at some point. Maybe with more than you ever would've wanted to pay for it, at a bad time, in a bad situation, and you won't be able to negotiate, because you Had your free lunch, and you have to pay for it, end of story.

As far as I can tell, there are some different, maybe connected, cultural things behind that. Partly it's that Nothing is free or given, just as a fact. That for everything anyone gets or receives, there's a payment. Just because that's how things are. Partly it's a cultural thing - maybe it's the Protestant work ethic thing - that you have to work for everything you have. Particularly anything nice, you do not have the right to have it unless you paid for it. If you accept something that you did not work for, you're doing a bad thing and you're a bad person, and the nice thing you got is no longer nice because now it's tainted because you got it a bad way.

I don't believe those things! But still, if we're talking literally about lunch, yes, sometimes there are practical reasons to be cautious. Sometimes people offering lunch don't understand that you can't afford a fancy lunch and can't reciprocate, and going without lunch can seem a much better option than getting tangled up with someone like that and having them think that you owe them something. Even if *I* don't want to go along with the "everything must be paid for in some way" way of thinking, it's really, really hard to push back against and refuse in my own head when there's someone else in the picture saying or implying that I do, indeed, owe them something. Then, what I "owe" them and need to pay back may very well be worth more than I would ever have paid for lunch independently, knowing my own circumstances; so, "free" lunch becomes "expensive lunch that puts me into debt and causes a lot of stress in the indeterminate time before it's made clear what the payment is".

Does that help? And, other folk, is this also what you're thinking of?

(Not to get super-off-topic, but I've been somewhat the person described by a couple of people posting here so far - the person not accepting free stuff and being super-picky about watching every penny, and separating my pennies from everyone else's. Just wanted to say that for anyone else like me who's reading. I don't think it made me mean or stingy! There are two problems: 1) power balance. If someone else is always paying more for something, more for whatever we're doing or eating, that creates a power imbalance which feels Very tricky and vulnerable. It also really stinks to be always the person who can't afford something. 2) I had no spare pennies; I didn't want to force anyone else to be quite as attentive to every penny as I was, and I absolutely couldn't afford the 5p/£1 here or there that they could. The easiest solution that ensured I could eat all month was to micro-manage my own stuff separately. Also, I was sometimes doing a bit of (harmless) smoke-and-mirrors, like only drinking tap water all night instead of actual drinks, and I didn't want everyone around to know that. Also, especially to the people posting above - if someone doesn't hold up their end of things or is super-awkward/pernickty/judgey/selfish, obviously, that is Not Cool and no-one is required to be ok with that!)

Personally, I don't connect the "free lunch" problem to pleasure so much. If anyone I'm having fun with, in any way, is clearly also having fun, then no-one's paying (with money or anything else) for anything, so we're all balanced. No-one's "getting" anything, we're simply having fun together.

[suburban_witch]

For me, I felt the "free lunch" dilemma big time, particularly when I was younger and I didn't have access to a regular source of income. I would get allowance, intermittently, from my father. It wasn't a regular thing, and I would save from my past city excursions.

I internalized that modesty was the most important trait to have, and so I wouldn't accept anything: compliments, and certainly not anyone treating me to anything before I made a big fuss of it. It was definitely hitched to low self-esteem and the feeling that I had done nothing to earn whatever a person was offering to me.

I've associated a lot of my sexuality with guilt, too, like that I don't deserve to feel pleasure. I think a lot of that is not having the freedom to be in my own space just yet. I think a lot of it has to do with reciprocation too, even if I may not feel like it at the time.