Posts Tagged ‘ sex ’

Good News/Bad News: Sleeping Around No Longer a Barrier to National Office, But Lying Isn’t Either

mark-sanfordOn the bright side, it’s nice to know that doing the horizontal tango with a full dance card isn’t the automatic disqualification from higher office that it used to be.

Mark Sanford is back, hiking the Appalachian Trail from his South Carolina district straight to Washington, D.C. as the newest member of the House of Representatives despite his extramarital affair with an Argentine mistress.

And now it looks like Anthony “Erectagram” Weiner might be taking a shot at mayoral office soon, though it remains to be seen how well he’ll do on that.

It’s starting to become a familiar story on Capitol Hill: boy meets girl, boy shows her his if she’ll show him hers; boy gets caught and retires from office to “spend more time with his family,” but returns a few election cycles later with a message of personal redemption.

All so well and good, insofar as the schtupping goes. I’m more than ready for Americans to agree that a hide-the-salami hobby doesn’t affect an elected official’s other qualifications (or lack thereof) for office.

But in return, could our elected officials maybe stop lying about their horizontal habits? I don’t object to a blunt “It’s not your business” (it’s not), but the openly false denials are a bit much in someone that’s writing the laws I have to abide by.

Tell you what — let’s stop treating it as a scandal when someone puts his-or-her swimsuit area up against someone else’s, and maybe our elected officials will stop feeling the need to assure us that they’re monogamous family types even when they’re not. Everybody wins!

Except, you know, all the people that don’t win their elections. That’s politics for you.

Sex Makes a Lousy Multiple Choice Test

One of the things I love about X-Rated Trivia Night at the gay club (other than the fact that there is, indeed, an “X-Rated Trivia Night at the gay club” a few minutes from my home) is listening to the charming queer boys try to explain how straight sex works.

For example, when a woman is about to cum, do you know whether you should

  • A) thrust as hard as you can,
  • B) hold perfectly still and enjoy the contractions,
  • C) whisper sweet nothings in her ear, or
  • D) arch your back?

We did not either! But apparently the answer was B, always, 100% of the time that is what you do. Who knew? It seems kinda selfish to me, but I’m sure the gay guys know best.

Worth noting, too, that the phrasing above was the entirety of this hypothetical, “when a woman is about to cum…you should” — and depending on what you’re doing to her at the time and with what equipment, I can definitely think of situations where “hold still and enjoy the contractions” is pointless advice at best. Queers can be so heteronormative!

Another delightful head-scratcher asked how one should pleasure a partner’s nipple:

  • A) by sucking like a baby,
  • B) lick/suck/lick/suck in a consistent rhythm,
  • C) suck each nipple for equal amounts of time, or
  • D) lift your mouth off the nipple and flick with your tongue

If you are saying something to the effect of “any or all of those depending on what my partner wants,” sorry! You got it wrong; also shouldn’t your mouth be full of nipple right now?

The answer was apparently D. I’m not sure how to interpret that, since the phrase “lift your mouth off the nipple” implies that your mouth, by necessity, needs to be on the nipple at some point to do it right. Maybe if you just happen to brush a nipple with your mouth, jerk back and start tonguing frantically, hoping they didn’t notice? It’s like Operation, only without the live electrical current.

scantron-multiple-choice-sheetOr maybe with it. Whatever floats your boat.

The important lesson to take away here is, of course, not that drag queens are bad at writing questions about sex (which they are, but they make up for it by being fantastic at reading the questions off and MCing in general).

The lesson is rather that sex makes a bad multiple choice quiz, and that you should maybe approach it with more of a dialogue mindset than a checklist mindset.

Although I guess you could get a laugh out of a “hot for teacher” classroom fetish scene with a sexy Scantron quiz. I’ll file that one away for later use (alongside my high heels and pencil skirt, obvs.).

 

“Please Don’t Fuck in the Library,” or, Your Right to Swing Your Dick Ends Where My Face Begins

University_of_California_Seal.svgMA101 somehow missed the story back when Congress required every college newspaper to feature a “quirky,” Dan Savage knock-off sex columnist, but they’re there, and with a ubiquity I can only assume it is federally mandated.

Berkeley’s The Daily Californian let their in-house version, Ms. Nadia Cho, run a column last month encouraging students to have sex in campus buildings. The article included a few paragraphs about how much she had enjoyed boning in the library, which prompted possibly the best comment ever to be left on the internet:

Please don’t fuck in the library. I work here. My staff works here. I told my staff I’d do what I can to make sure theirs is a safe and happy workplace. Now, in addition to pedophiles, thieves, and people with poor bowel function, I’ve got kids using shitty liberal arts justifications to fuck in the library.

I don’t want to rain on your liberating parade or interfere with your bucket list, but you don’t have to deal with the complaints. I know you would like your sex life to be more exciting, but do you know what is also exciting? Getting to work and thinking, “there won’t be people fucking in the library today” Now that is liberating.

Incidentally, thank you for advising people not to ejaculate in the library. After cleaning up garbage, graffiti, shit that is apparently dropped from 10 feet above the toilet, and a variety of bodily fluids, I hesitate to ask cleaning staff to add ejaculate to that list.

Preach it, sister. (Also, “shit that is apparently dropped from 10 feet above the toilet”? I want to know what they’re serving at the Berkley cafeterias.)

There is a saying, pertaining to the balance of liberties and safety, that “your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins,” and I am happy to paraphrase it for sexual behaviors. As we’ve discussed on this blog before, a little discretion goes a long way in making kinky sex a positive thing that everyone can enjoy, rather than a menace to society.

Because frankly, even if we disregard the obvious health issues of used condoms and similar sexual detritus in public places (which we shouldn’t), the presence of your bare genitals pounding away in the library stacks really is a menace to society. Some people are not comfortable with watching sex, even as a purely visual participant. Some people have strict and serious cultural taboos against observing naked bodies, some people have traumatic associations with sex that they would prefer not to be reminded of, and some people are fine with sex but frankly need to use the library for its actual purpose right now thank you very much.

Getting your thrill by having sex where any of those people could encounter you (the author specifically and gleefully talks about “two instances in which people walked by the shelves between which my partner and I were going at it hard-core”) is deliberately inflicting your sexual behavior on them without consent. It’s irresponsible, it’s selfish, and it’s uncomfortably close to the borderline of rape.

So let’s hear it for the anonymous librarian commenter giving a much-needed “SHUSH!” to Berkley’s “Sex on Tuesday” columnist. Why they gave the job to someone this shaky on basic consent issues I can’t even imagine.

Penis = Diva

Maybe it’s all the opera I’ve been seeing lately, but can we all agree that the penis is kind of a diva? I mean, seriously:

  • It won’t even come out of its dressing room if it’s too cold.
  • It gets bored with the same costume over and over again.
  • You have to kind of flatter it and tell it how amazing it is, otherwise it won’t preform.
  • When it’s on top of its game it can bring down the house, but if it puts in a lackluster performance the whole show tanks.
  • It thinks it’s the star of the show even if it only gets one eight-minute appearance

But when all’s said and done, it is nice to have someone that can hit those high notes…

I’ll leave the rest to the comments page. The less I say about penises in general, the better my hopes of someday holding public office. (Ha! MA101 has thoroughly ruined those already, who am I kidding. To the country’s benefit no doubt.)

“Traditional Christian” Sex is Pretty Damn Kinky

Bear with me a minute here while I work this one out. This is a thought that merits thinking.

I don’t actually like phrases like “Christian sex” or “Biblical families” or any of that, since they’re almost always used in conjunction with an argument that’s neither Christian nor Biblical.

Still, the people who believe in legislating your sex life, whatever religious flavor they happen to come in — they’re not 100% opposed to sex, right? There’s just a particular kind of sex that’s “right sex.”

And unless I’m reading their literature totally wrong, it’s really kinky sex.

Let’s just tic off the bullet points here. What all are the hoops you have to jump through, pun intended, for your carnal relations to be 100% okay with the God-squad these days?

1. Heterosexual. An easy place to start the triage. One man plus one woman equals good sex; any variation on the theme equals bad sex.

1a. Cis-gendered. A necessary footnote to 1. One man who was born with a penis plus one woman who was born with a vagina. You cheaters thought you had a sneaky way out there!

2. Married. Legally bound into a contract of shared property, rights, etc. by the government.

3. Monogamous. If either partner has ever had any other partners, it’s a “bad” relationship, and therefore presumably bad sex. Or maybe adulterers can still have good, lawful, righteous sex, just as someone who’s going to hell for other things? I’ve never been too clear on this one.

4. Procreational. As opposed to recreational (kind of cool how much those look like antonyms even though they’re not, isn’t it?) “Good sex” is unprotected and at least theoretically trying to make a baby; any sex that can’t result in babies is “bad sex.”

4a. Boring. An obvious corollary there is that if you’re doing anything just for fun during the sex, it’s bad. Toys, costumes, roleplaying, etc. don’t make babies, so you they shouldn’t be involved. (Although now that I say it, wouldn’t that make a fetish righteous, if it was necessary for the man to get it up and thereby inseminate the woman?)

So to put it in other terms, if you’re a good God-fearing, Bible-probably-not-actually-reading zealot of the religious right, you can only have sex if:

  • It is with a specific physical subset of people that are “your type.”
  • If the sex takes place in a framework of rules and authority, with outside enforcement beyond your control.
  • It is with one partner whose sexual activity you tightly restrict, and who tightly restricts yours.
  • You’re actively thinking about pregnancy and childbirth while you’re doing it.
  • You do it a particular way, in a particular position, and not in any others.

I’m just gonna come right out and say it — that shit’s pretty kinky. You’ve got fetishized physicalities, power dynamics, restraint and control play, a really weird and vaguely Oedipal obsession with the womb and/or sperm, and some very specific rules about positioning and mechanics.

You could go to a dungeon party with that list of needs and fit right in.

And hell, even that’s assuming that you’re someone who legitimately enjoys all those things. If you’re making yourself do it because you feel better when you make yourself do things sexually that you don’t like, that’s one more level of kink added in there.

(The guys who snap and start doing it with underaged hookers in truck stop bathrooms are, of course, beyond “kinky” and into “downright criminal,” but I figured I’d be nice and limit this one to the law-abiding but sexually-bizarre Christian right. The point is, that is a specific and fetishy list of erotic needs right there.)

And I’m a-okay with that, between consenting adults who are into it. To each their own. But damn if it’s not just as weird as anything that I and my collection of inventively-shaped silicone “art objects” have gotten up to over the course of my years, and anyone who says otherwise is…well, a little closeted, realistically.

Poor things.

Live and Let Kink: Dealing with Sexuality in Two Easy Steps

Just so folks that stopped by yesterday for the adorable cat post know, Misanthropology101 isn’t always about cats. It’s not always about kinky sex, either, but you can safely expect it to swing back and forth somewhere between those two extremes. The “Top Posts” on the right-hand sidebar might help if you’re struggling for a better idea of what all goes on over here.

That said, onto two basic lessons for dealing with human sexuality that a number of people I’ve run into lately seem to need:

Step 1: Così fan tutte

Statistically speaking, your next-door neighbor probably likes to dress up like a clown and spank her husband with a frying pan.

True story!

Oh, it might not be that specific activity, but there’s something you think is weird and she thinks is sexy (and he thinks is sexy too, hopefully; the husband I mean. Or other life partner, or non life partner who is just another happily consenting adult…this stuff is hard to talk about if you’re trying not to make assumptions, damn.)

The point is that weird, kinky things have always been with us. History is rife with examples, and that’s just among the people we bothered to write things down about. Pick an era at random and we probably know of someone who did something freaky in bed back then:

  • James Joyce wrote his wife all manner of lewd letters, ranging from the mildly naughty to talking about lying under her and smelling her farts.
  • Catherine the Great’s death by equine intercourse was definitely a malicious rumor, but she was certainly no stranger to using a horsewhip in bed, and if she didn’t actually sleep with the horse it would be about the only male at court that escaped her.
  • Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart regularly dabbled in (ew, word choice) bizarre and scatological correspondence with female family members. Apologists have argued that it probably didn’t mean the same thing back then, because changing social mores and blah blah blah, but honestly if telling your cousin you planned to lick her ass was normal and above-board in late 18th-century Vienna we probably would have heard more about it by now.
  • And no discussion of odd fetishes throughout the ages would be complete without a link to The Dream of the Fisherman’s Wife, a classic but undeniably erotic woodblock involving octopi that may be NSFW depending on your place of employment (so use your discretion). The dialogue, beautifully calligraphed into the background, hardly sounds early 19th-century at all:

LARGE OCTOPUS: All eight limbs to intertwine with!! How do you like it this way? Ah, look! The inside has swollen, moistened by the warm waters of lust. “Nura nura doku doku doku…”

MAIDEN: Yes, it tingles now; soon there will be no sensation at all left in my hips. Ooooooh! Boundaries and borders gone! I’ve vanished….!!!!!!

SMALL OCTOPUS: After daddy finishes, I too want to rub and rub my suckers at the ridge of your furry place until you disappear and then I’ll suck some more. “chyu chyu…”

I share all of this with you in part just because it entertains me, but mostly by way of proving the original point: that you almost certainly know someone who is really into some erotic fetish or other. They’ve been with us since the beginning of written history, in every culture that had one.

It’s a good thing to remember, especially if you do accidentally find out (and I won’t ask how) about someone’s, ah, extracurricular activities. As odd as things may seem, you probably shouldn’t alter your perception of him/her/whatever all that much. Apart from a few truly pathological people whose problems go well beyond their sexual interests (and likely aren’t all that related to them), most people’s personalities aren’t determined by what they do in bed.

So accept the historical and sociological reality that we live in a wide, freaky world of kink. The internet has opened a lot of doors, and a lot of people are realizing that they’re not alone for the first time — but they never were, and they never will be, as long as some clever monkey is still trying to figure out what else he can stick his banana into.

Step 2: A Little Discretion, Please

The flip side of this “everyone does it” coin is that everyone does wildly different things. That’s rather the point.

That means that you have both a right to enjoy your inflatable balloon sex play and a corresponding responsibility to keep it tactfully discreet for those of us that prefer other flavors.

Put it this way: if we’ve just tonight met at a party and I already know that you like visiting “dungeons” in your spare time, you’re over-sharing. You have other things to talk about, or else you’re defining way too much of who you are by your sexual interests. Get a hobby or something.

Variety is good. Awareness of the variety that’s out there is no bad thing. Indulging in your own personal variety in public — being led around on a leash as you go barhopping, making casual conversations all about who’s taking the “dominant” or “submissive” roles in talking, etc. — is going beyond universal tolerance and becoming an invasion of other people’s personal tastes and spaces with your own. Reel it in a little.

Otherwise you might do something famous, and three hundred years from now we’ll still be reading your letters and trying to figure out just what it was about your cousin’s ass that you liked so much.

Live and let kink, eh?

3 Real-Life Etiquette Rules for Internet Dating

The trouble with etiquette books is that they’re written by people who still get their information from books. Most of you have stopped doing that, haven’t you?

Never fear. As dating has moved online, so have people (like me) who are academically interested in you making less of an idiot on your date. After all, I might have to do this some day too. So read on:

1. Whoever Invited Pays

You can over/under the age of an etiquette manual pretty accurately by flipping to the dating section and seeing whether it has this rule or the earlier version: “a gentleman always pays the check for both parties!”

It’s a good rule (the newer version, that is). It eliminates one of the biggest bullshit head-games in dating. And someone who doesn’t like this rule and wants to make a show about the check — however they’re proposing it be handled — is probably playing that head-game. Odds are that they read some book about how to appear successful or something.

So keep it simple. If you set the date up, pay the check. If you accepted an invitation, let them get the check. And if you get to multiple dates and you want to make sure everyone’s getting their turn to pay, send some invitations, or add more events onto dates you were invited to: “Dinner sounds great. There’s a concert near there that I was thinking of going to — want me to grab us tickets?”

2. “Full Disclosure” Comes after Dinner but Before an Invitation to a Second Date

Theoretically no one needs this rule, because you’ve been completely detailed and honest about your life situation on your dating site profile, right?

Ha!

No, most people will have some kind of “full disclosure” that they need to make. You’ve got a kid. You’re between jobs and living with your parents. You’re dating someone else but it’s an open relationship. Whatever.

These are things that need to be brought up before “a date” turns into “dating.” That said, talking about yourself and your life situation at dinner is boring and a bit presumptuous. Wait until the date goes well (if it goes well) and add the disclosure to the request for a follow-up:

“I had a great time and I’d love to see you again. I know that people can have strong opinions about this sort of thing, so I should tell you now that I do have a three year-old at home, but I hope that’s not going to be a total deal-breaker. Call me!”

3. Don’t Hook Up on the First Date; Don’t Date the Hook-Up

But…but alternative lifestyles! Polyamory! Fuck the old social norms! You’re a tool of the patriarchy! Waaaaaah!

Stop.

Take a deep breath. Cleanse your mental palate of all those knee-jerk reactions you default to as soon as someone starts talking about sex. Half of you are already putting words in my mouth (fingers?) and you need to not do that.

Definitions: a “date” is some kind of public social activity that two people go on to see whether they enjoy one another’s company and want to pursue more of it. A “hook-up” is casual sex between two people who aren’t pursuing a relationship.

Both are fine. Neither is bad. But you don’t want to cross signals.

If you’re dating in the hopes of finding a longer-term partner you want to start with a clear picture of their public persona. That’s the “them” that you’re going to spend most of your life interacting with. Getting upstairs and getting naked right off the bat is adding a lot of data to the first impression you already have. Give your brain some time off to figure out how well you like this person before you dump a bunch of hormones and “yeah, but she’s amazing in bed!” into the mental file.

And if you’re just kind of screwing around casually don’t call the next day. Maybe you were just advertising for one-night stands with dinner first but all of a sudden you felt a real connection. Too bad. You don’t have any reason to believe that the same is true for the other person. They picked up an ad for a “casual encounter.” Respect that desire and keep it that way. If you happen to cross paths in another setting maybe you can strike up a non-sexual conversation and see where it goes, but don’t start hounding them the morning after the fling.

That clear anything up for anyone? Got your own internet dating etiquette to add? Leave a comment!

On the Etymology of Ejaculation – “I’m Cumming” vs. “I’m Coming”

Am I the only one that hiccups to a brief, awkward stop when I read the word “come” in a sexual description?

C-O-M-E come, like in “come here boy.” Or, more perplexing to me, like in “and in that moment, sweaty-handed, I felt her coming beneath me,” etc.

We have a word for getting off, the ejaculatory part of it. Actually we have a lot of words for it. But “come” and its variant forms is not a good one.

I want to know why people are still using this. (I most recently saw it in the pages of an Esquire magazine masquerading as something other than porn, badly, but I know I have seen it before and will see it again, more times than I could efficiently footnote).

It smacks of that same Puritanical urge that makes you ask the store clerk “do you have a washroom?” instead of “where is the bathroom?” You might as well say garderobe.

I find myself wanting scientific studies. I want control groups, I want gender and age brackets; I want to know if people who use the internet more frequently are more likely to default to the properly-differentiated cum instead of its mincing cousin. I want to know why people who are actively describing the moment of sexual climax feel the need to be fucking discreet about it. I want to know whether the OED has added “var. cumming” to its definition yet.

“I’m coming” is what I used to shout from the backyard when Mom called us in for suppertime. Its associations with the orgasmic moment are ominous at best. Think on that one for a while.

And what about the illiterate? If you don’t know how to spell, or even if you do know how to spell but you have never seen a dirty book or a naughty movie cover or a salacious banner ad, does it even cross your mind that using c-o-m-ing versus c-u-m-ming is a really weird thing to do, or is that purely a bedevilment of people who think too hard about words?

Vidi, vici, veni.

I suppose there are real, practical considerations here for the romance/erotica writers among us. For me it’s purely an abstract bedevilment, albeit one that rears its head at awkward moments. It is a difficult conclusion to come to.

Bloggers always say “leave a comment.” But I’m genuinely interested in knowing how you all spell cumming/coming, and whether you’ve ever thought about it before. And, for that matter, whether you always will think about it from here on out, damn my soul.

So leave a comment.

Glam Mags are Sexist, Story at 11:00

Hey look at that, it really is 11:00 as I’m writing this. Of course that means actual post time will be a little later. But hey! Welcome to the grassroots.

I subscribe to Details magazine out of professional necessity. It is, theoretically, a fashion magazine, and I am from time to time a fashion writer, QED. And it is nothing if not educational.

I was struck particularly, for instance, by the juxtaposition of two two-page spread pieces on movie stars: one on Ralph Fiennes, pp. 34-5, and one on Kerry Washington, pp. 36-7. You don’t actually need to know who these actors are for this to make sense, just that the one named Ralph is male and the one named Kerry is female. Here’s Ralph’s spread:

And here, when you turn the page, is Kerry’s:

Some slight differences in graphic design, as you may have noticed. And maybe that’s fair. Maybe a whole lot more people want to see Kerry Washington mostly-naked than Ralph Fiennes, although my mother might argue with that. So arguably they’re just playing to the numbers here.

And that might be enough to soothe the ruffled feathers if this were just one of those provocative images circulating Facebook that juxtapose two obviously different things in the hopes that you will recognize the inequity inherent in them and, I don’t know, be shocked for a couple seconds before going back to Farmville or something. This sort of thing:

But this is in a magazine, and I’m actually a writer and not a graphic designer, so what interests me is the stories printed along with these images.

Both fill somewhat less than half a page of text when you take the headers and graphics into account. Both are subject-friendly little fluff pieces.

Ralph Feinnes’s is a Q&A format interview transcript. You have a bold-faced “Q: Blah blah blah” and then, a line later, Ralph’s “A: Blahdy blah blah blah.”

Kerry Washington’s is basically a short bio and credits listing interspersed with quotes that the author obviously got in an interview with her.

I don’t want to read too much into this. No, that’s a lie, I do — it’s a pretty pointed editorial decision to get interviews with two different stars, run them side by side, and keep one as a Q&A interview where the star does most of the talking while changing the other into a few select quotes surrounded by your magazine’s own editorial voice.

Maybe it has nothing to do with one star being male and the other being female. Maybe Kerry Washington just gives a really bad interview and they had to do some cosmetic surgery to it.

But with one article set up to look like it came out of Business Weekly and the other laid out like a Playboy centerfold it’s a little hard to believe that that’s all we have going on.

So…glamor mags are aggressively sexist, story at 11, like the title says, right?

And yes, boys, Details is a glamor mag. Sorry.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 774 other followers