sexuality

News

One of my favorite parts of blogging for National Masturbation Month is writing about masturbation scenes in mainstream movies. Six years ago when I began this blog I had a list of 15 or 20 films notable for their representation of the sex act that may only be spoken of in giggles and whispers: sex with yourself.

Thanks to our eagle eye readers the list has blown up, last time I checked topping 47 films from 1972 to 2010. If you haven't check it out, have a look. It might inspire you to go back and see some of these old films (or see them again).

And if you have a favorite scene that isn't on the list, let me know, I'll add it so everyone can enjoy.

| Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum |

about.com | 21-May-2012 02:01

Discount Sex Drugs for Soliders - Is This What Support Looks Like?

May 19th is Armed Services Day (also called Armed Forces Day but I'll mention both since it's not clear who is winning that pr battle). Growing up in a big Canadian city my relationship to the military was simple. I didn't know anyone who was in the military. And the story is that my grandfather enlisted prior to the Second World War but never made it out of basic training because he had flat feet. The regiment that he was scheduled to be with did go to Europe and none of the service members in that regiment made it home alive. If not for his flat feet, none of us would have been born.

If you don't know anyone who has served in the military, and especially if you don't know anyone who has been deployed to a war zone, it's easy to think about service in black and white terms. I've met many who believe that the best way to support the troops is to question nothing and offer nationalistic platitudes till the cows come home. And I've met people who aren't able to see service members as humans deserving of the same rights and justice as the rest of us. There aren't a lot of folks in the middle.

Which is too bad since I bet a lot of service members would put themselves there. And I wonder, based on my very limited experience, how well equipped those of us who haven't served in the military are to offer the kind of support service members actually need. I worry that we aren't very well equipped at all. That we are failing.

Which brings me to an Armed Services Day promotion I came across. Some online pharmacy that specializes in "lifestyle drugs" (read: drugs for sexual functioning like Viagra, Cialis, Levitra) is recognizing the "service and sacrifice" of service members past and present by offering them $15 off their order of sex drugs on May 19th.

The truth is that service members are often un- and underemployed, and $15 off is $15 off, so it's hard to say "this is terrible and shouldn't happen". But it feels right to say "this is terrible". Service members get so little support with post-combat sexual health issues and the rates of sexual assault and suicide are so high, that I think it's fair to say this kind of shameless drug marketing simply doesn't have a place in any thoughtful consideration of what we might want to be thinking about on May 19th. And even though some might benefit from the discount, I have a hard time thinking of it as support in any meaningful way.

about.com | 16-May-2012 02:01

Talking About the Porn Talk

An article in the Times last week raised the complicated issue of talking with children about pornography. It was nice to see it there since it's been a reality for parents for years. Companies that make Internet connected technology (mobile devices, tablets, and old school computers) are increasingly marketing the devices as something suitable for young children. And plenty of parents agree.

But along with the free access to thousands of hours of kid friendly videos (thanks YouTube) and cool apps that turn classic kid's books into animated worlds of wonder, comes access to unwanted and inappropriate sexually explicit material, and pornography.

Filters don't do the job. And the always filter out plenty of important, age approriate, sex education material. The kind of material that can make it easier for parents and children to navigate sex education together.

The article describes several parents and their approach to the topic, ranging in degrees of openness to talking, and willingness to acknowledge that while pornography isn't appropriate material for children, sexuality and sexual health are topics that can and should be talked about. Some of the framing is off. Like the idea that teaching about sex is a series of discrete conversations, and all parents have to do now is add porn to the list.

But more than the article, I appreciated the accompanying piece which they call an "interactive feature" (I'm not sure what to call it, not exactly journalism, not exactly educational material, but the Times is producing more and more of it in an effort to get readers to stay on their pages).

In this feature the writer provides a more detailed description of each parent's response to the situation they found themselves in, and then they asked the two sexuality professionals who were quoted in the article to weigh in on the parents responses.

Something that stuck with me had to do with how we explain to children that pornography isn't appropriate for them. Saying "it's for adults" might be enough for some kids, but many, certainly older, kids will want to know more. Embedded in the answer is the assumption that you get to an age when you can comprehend the material and then it's "appropriate" or "safe" for you to see it? But what age is that?

I don't have an answer but I'm pretty sure it isn't a chronological age at all. I think it might be something along the lines of what Marty Klein (one of the professionals who is quoted in the article) calls "pornography literacy". The idea that what is most harmful about legal pornography is not what it depicts, but what we do with it in the absence of decent sex education and media literacy skills. It's an interesting question and one I'm glad the Times is raising.

NYTimes.com: When Children See Internet Pornography

For Parents: How to Talk With Your Kids About Pornography

For Educators: BISH Training - Working With Young People Around Porn

| Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum |

about.com | 14-May-2012 02:01

Doing It Solo

One can never know for sure what statistics about our online searching habits mean. Does the trending of a search term related to a celebrity illness or breakup "tell" us something about how much we care about that celebrity, or our health, or fidelity? Are we what we search for?

I think about this every time I look at the statistics for the Sexuality site on About.com. Millions of people visit the site, often finding me because they entered some term into a search engine. And based on a non-scientific sampling, it's my impression that far more people are interested in how to masturbate than in how to have sex with some one else.

What does this mean? And considering the gender stereotype that all boys/men know how to masturbate, how come masturbation techniques for men are at least as popular as those for women?

I don't have answers to any of these questions, but I like thinking about them and talking to people to hear their take. And also, it does my heart good to know that people are curious about feeling pleasure, and producing that pleasure on their own.

If you don't have a lot of plans for this second weekend of National Masturbation Month, I thought I'd offer some suggestions by way of my most popular masturbation tips. Maybe it's time for a date with yourself?

| Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum |

about.com | 11-May-2012 13:22

Masturbation Month Turns 17

In 1994 when President Bill Clinton fired Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders for answering yes to a question about whether masturbation was an appropriate topic to be addressed in sexual health education, many of us shook our heads. Not that we couldn't believe he fired her for it. Most of us were dismayed (or depressed) by the level of hypocrisy that would make it a forgone conclusion that she'd lose her job for suggesting that the most common sexual behavior on the planet be at least mentioned when we teach about sexuality.

The following year in a collaborative move that is hard to imagine today, three feminist sex shops got together to simultaneously celebrate Dr. Elders forthrightness, raise the topic of masturbation in public, and raise their own profiles. And so National Masturbation Month and the Masturbate-a-Thon were born.

It's been 17 years, and while so far I've only found one Masturbate-a-Thon 2012 going on, it's still a month I have a hard time letting go of...or I mean it's a month I have a hard time shaking off...er, maybe what I mean to say is that I can't rub out the memory of...oh forget it, there are too many euphemisms for masturbation, talking is hard.

If you haven't heard of it before, a masturbate-a-thon is a fundraiser where people commit to heroic sessions of self-pleasure, and ask others to pledge them. Sometimes it's by the minute, other times it's by the orgasm. But however you do it, it's a whole lot of fun, and always for a good cause.

I'll be highlighting my own odes to solo sex all this month, and after reading an article about a college student who is pledging to abstain from masturbation for a month (because she feels she's doing it too much), I thought I'd start with a question that I get whenever I'm on a college campus: how much masturbation is too much masturbation. Read on, and if you aren't sure how to celebrate the month, later in the week I'll be offering tips in that direction.

| Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum |

about.com | 07-May-2012 12:35

Stopping It Before It Starts: Banning Talk of Gateway Sexual Activity

Is it a sign of the apocalypse that it's harder and harder to tell the difference between so-called real news and the fake news delivered by places like The Onion or The Daily Show? It certainly makes it harder to know when to laugh and when to cry. Case in point, this item from WREG in Memphis:

Lawmakers have passed a bill changing the language of how sexual education is conducted in Tennessee. The bill, Senate Bill 3310, focuses primarily on abstinence, but allows for comparison of contraception methods. However, contraception is no longer allowed to be distributed on school property. The confusing part is where they prohibit instructors from encouraging "gateway sexual behaviors." The bill also allows for teachers to be disciplined, and for third-party instructors to be sued, if the rules are not followed."

Never mind that the idea of gateway sex is undefined, unproven, and unintelligible fantasy cooked up by the kind of people who say sex is bad, and then won't stop talking about it. In a television interview Rep. John Deberry, Jr. (ahem...(D) Memphis) explains that gateway sex is something most people would be able to understand if they saw it.

Except of course you provide sex education in part because it's a topic that most of us don't understand that well. At the end of the news item the Representative was paraphrased saying that the bill "would be a way to ensure that abstinence is a cornerstone of any sexual education."

It's also a way to ensure that even the best teachers won't be able to their job, and none of the students in Memphis can expect decent sex education in their public schools.

WREG Memphis: Lawmakers Pass "Gateway Sexual Activity" Ban

| Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum |

about.com | 30-Apr-2012 02:01

Making Meaning Out of a G-Spot

There's yet another article claiming to prove the existence of the g-spot. This one comes from a gynecologic surgeon whose website encourages patients to "regain" their "self-confidence with genetalia rejuvenation". Whether you want it thinner, thicker, plumper, or otherwise plasty-er Dr. Ostrzenski has the procedure for you.

He also managed to get access to an 83-year-old dead woman's body in Poland, and performed a "stratum-by-stratum vaginal wall dissection" on her. The results, he says, proves the existence of the g-spot. In this woman's body the g-spot he found was 8.1 mm long, 3.6 mm wide, and .4 mm high. He describes three parts, and a bluish grape like color. There are color photos embedded in the article.

I can think of no better example of the process by which we make meaning of the world around us, than this on again off again search for the g-spot. Through the Science Media Centre, Petra Boynton offered an excellent comment on this latest paper, and she's expanded on it here on her own blog. It's worth reading in it's entirety (it isn't posted yet, but I'll add a link once it is, but I particularly appreciate that she highlights how, on the one hand, researchers, journals, pharmaceutical companies, and retailers all benefit for the production of a "debate" about the g-spot, and, the other, the people who all this information is being targeted to, lose.

There's nothing wrong with the slow and steady development of a body of knowledge. And in and of itself I'd like to say there's nothing wrong with this paper. Only then I read the discussion. In it the author offers a framing for the "controversy" surrounding the g-spot. Have a read:

"The absence of the identification of the G-spot as an anatomic structure created considerable controversies and a biased interpretation of the scientific results worldwide, leading to a monolithic clitoral model of female sexual response. However, women have held the unwavering position that there are distinct areas in the anterior vagina which are responsible for a sensation of great sexual pleasure. "

So first, in case you missed it, what he's describing, among other things, is the impact of the women's movement on public discourse and personal experience of sexuality. When he says it it sounds a bit different. If I read this correctly his understanding of what's happened is men and the media have been pushing some "monolithic clitoral model" while women have all along said that vaginal penetration is where it's at.

It's a great story. But it deserves a great big "What?!?" What monolithic clitoral model? Which unwavering women? I know that surgeons think they can do everything (and when they are operating on me I guess I'm grateful for their hubris), but maybe they should leave political, cultural, and historical analysis to folks with some context.

Again, there's no reason this guy can't cut up a body and make a case, but along with a handful of other white male researchers, it's the undercurrent of aggression in the writing that gives me pause. It reminds me a lot of those men's groups that claim to be fighting for father's rights when they really seem to be about eliminating mother's rights. Some of those father's are being discriminated against, for sure. And there may very well be an anatomical structure that can be called a g-spot. Why not. But it doesn't have to be one or the other. Lots of fathers are actually trying to screw their exes out of spite. And even if there is some sac of purplish tissue on the superior surface of the dorsal perineal membrane, that doesn't actually say much of anything about sexual pleasure (which is what ultimately this article and most of the others make claims about.

It doesn't have to be one or the other. I know it's more complicated when you think that way but that's why debating is only one way of advancing knowledge, and not a particularly good way at that. But it does make for a good show.

| Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum |

about.com | 25-Apr-2012 15:38

Looking and Not Looking: Sexual Violence and Conjugal Visits

A paper published recently in the American Journal of Criminal Justice caught my attention. The report, titled "The Effect of Conjugal Visitation on Sexual Violence in Prison" brings attention to a topic that is seriously under studied among social scientists: sexual violence in prisons.

The authors, citing previous research, refer to prison sexual violence as "America's most ignored crime problem". It might seem like a small thing but I was thankful that the authors acknowledge sexual violence in prison as a crime. People who are incarcerated tend to be painted with one giant dehumanizing brush. All too often in conversations I hear people express the belief that if you are in prison, you must be there for doing something very bad, and whatever it is, it means you deserve the bad things that will most certainly befall you while you are incarcerated.

But if you pay even the slightest bit of attention to what is actually happening across the prison industrial complex, or if you know anyone who has ever been imprisoned, you know that prisons are full of people, not caricatures. And those peoples lives are governed at every turn by violence and injustice.

So it was disappointing to read on and find that the paper takes a terribly narrow view of its subject in trying to answer the question: does allowing conjugal visits reduce the amount of sexual assault that takes place in a prison. The authors highlight two theories of sexual violence: one which they identify as feminist (suggesting that sexual violence is primarily about power and control), and the other which they call the sexual gratification theory (which suggests that sexual violence is an attempt not the part of the perpetrator to satiate a sexual need). They suggest that if conjugal visits do reduce sexual violence it is because inmates are able to get sexual gratification consensually during those conjugal visits, and so they aren't sexually assaulting other inmates, or at least they are doing so less often.

The authors took data from 2004-2006 from all 50 U.S. states on the rates of reported inmate-on-inmate sexual violence. They compared the rates of violence in the 45 states that don't allow conjugal visits with the rates in the five states which do. They found much lower rates of reported sexual violence among inmates in states that allow conjugal visits (57 per 100,000) than in those states that do not allow conjugal visits (226 per 100,000 inmates).

In and of itself I suppose this is a useful statistic to know, but there is so much missing from the discussion, so many voices that need to be heard, that it's hard to know what to make of the numbers.

The authors don't tell us how often prisoners in the five states that allow it, were given the right to actual have conjugal visits. It's not as if the five states which allow conjugal visits, make them available frequently or willingly (see, for example, the description of who is allowed conjugal visits in Mississippi). It would be good to know how many requests are made and how many are granted. Maybe this data isn't available, although it must be recorded somewhere. Without it, there is a kind of echo chamber right in the heart of the paper, a space where the role of the prison industrial complex would be factored in. So we have no way of knowing whether this discrepancy is actually tied at all to conjugal visits (which when they are granted are not always for sexual contact, instead they are often used to allow family to visit and simply hang out as best they can given the setting).

In the paper there is no discussion of sexual violence perpetrated by prison staff. The authors would argue that this isn't relevant because they are interested in whether giving prisoners the ability to engage in consensual sexual activity reduces non-consensual sexual activity. But sexual violence in prisons can't be so neatly parsed out. The violence that takes place takes place in a larger context of both injustice and violence done not only physically but emotionally, psychologically, spiritually, often in the name of rehabilitation.

It's this larger context, which is so much in the face of everyone who experiences prison life (regardless of which side of the bars you're on, or whether you are a family member, social service professional, activist, advocate, or sexual partner) that seems too much to leave out. But I understand that research like this is kind of built to leave this stuff out. Taking narrower and narrower slices of experience is what so much social science research does. I don't want to suggest it shouldn't be done, but what worries me is what conclusions are arrived at when one is only looking at a speck of dirt on a prison wall covered in blood.

The conclusions are not all bad. The authors do recommend that more states allow conjugal visits. And they acknowledge that while they chose to look only at a reduction in sexual violence perpetrated by inmates against other inmates, there are other benefits that have been associated with allowing people to visit with partners and family in a separate space inside the prison.

But the authors also suggest that their finding support greater use of "chemical castration" to reduce sexual violence in prisons. Since, they suggest, their findings show that sexual violence is a function of gratification and not control, taking sexual desire out of the equation (through "chemical castration") should reduce sexual violence. I hate to sound like a broken record here but sexual violence in prisons will never be, can never be, about one thing. The same is true, by the way, for sexual violence outside of prisons.

I'm not naive enough to think that interventions are not necessary some of the time for some people to keep others around them safe. But the idea that one will "fix" problems with violence inside prisons by medicating some of the people incarcerated in those prisons seems to so badly miss the point that, rightly or wrongly, it makes me question what these researchers see when they look at the state of sexual violence in the prison system.

Learn More:

about.com | 25-Apr-2012 02:01

Problems Initiating Sex

Last week I got an email from a reader who wanted help figuring out how to initiate sex with her boyfriend. She explained that he always starts things up and she felt bad about that. But her desire to make things a bit more equal in the relationship was coming into conflict with her own feelings of shame around sex, which makes it hard for her to imagine taking up sexual space in a way that would allow her to initiate sex.

There's a paradox (or maybe it's a riddle, or a conundrum, I'm not sure which) for people in long term relationships that I often encounter when I'm working with groups of them. If you talk to a group of couples who have been together for five years or more then tend to act as if they know everything about each other. Sex can become routine and both partners may be working under the assumption that it's routine because there's nothing left to discover.

But then get either partner on their own, and start asking them about what they ARE NOT saying or doing in the bedroom, and you invariably find a wealth of sexual curiosity and desire. The trick is bringing it into the room when both people are there and have the time and energy for sex.

One of the biggest obstacles I encounter in all of this are the number of stereotypes and expectations based on gender when it comes to who initiates sex. Challenging those is a life long endeavor, and one thing that helps is when folks actually hear from one another. It's one of the reasons I was so happy to get and publish this letter, as far too often what I hear is that one person initiates sex and they assume the other person just doesn't care. As opposed to thinking about why their partner might not be starting things up.

In responding to this reader I offered her a few ideas on how to get more comfortable initiating sex, and I thought I'd share with you too.

Read more - Sex Definitions

| Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum |

about.com | 31-Mar-2012 21:54

Bi-Coastal Sex Conferences

This weekend while I'll be following my colleagues to the west coast for the fifth annual Sex::Tech conference focusing on new media, youth, and sexual health, there's another major meeting of sexual hearts and minds happening on the east coast.

Now in it's second year, the Momentum Conference ("Making waves in sexuality, feminism, and relationships") is coming to Washington, DC, offering three days of education, politics, and good times. I've never been able to attend, but any conference that offers ice cream socials, Dirty Bingo, and a keynote featuring Dr. Joyceln Elders, Esther Perel, and Lara Riscol is a conference that's doing it best to deliver something for everyone.

It's hard to create spaces that accommodate both intellectual and experiential learning, a place where you can both learn how to do a thing and also be given the opportunity to try and do that thing (whatever said thing might be). And in practice it's never perfect.

But it's great to see this conference grow, and I'm looking forward to making it one day in person. For those of us who can't make it the organizers just released a collection of papers from selected presenters, available as a Kindle edition on Amazon.

| Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum |

about.com | 26-Mar-2012 20:14

The Trouble with Normal

I remember many years ago having a conversation with a sex therapist. He said that one of his most important functions was reassuring people they were normal. He described client after client who would sit down in his office, often wracked with guilt and full of shame about some aspect of their sexual desires or practices, and how their entire demeanor and outlook would change once he told them that whatever secret they had been holding on to wasn't something that made them a freak. That their singular freakish secret was actually something he had heard from dozens of other clients. That it was, in his words, perfectly normal.

Sex educators use normal in this therapeutic way as well. The phrase, "everything is normal" has become a kind of comforting mantra for a certain kind of sex educator and a growing number of sex advice columnists, coaches, and self-appointed gurus. It's understood to be a mark of sex positivity and progressiveness. No judgement. Everything is good.

I'm sympathetic to the impulse, but to me this response has always rung hollow. In part that's because usually when I hear people say it (or read them write it) I just don't believe them. It sounds like a line; a kind of mean-nothing cure-all. Obviously this is my personal response, but I have a pretty finely honed BS detector and most of these people don't actually follow through on their "it's all good" message. They seem to be full of judgement, full of righteous opinions, and clearly have ideas about what is good and what is bad, right and wrong, when it comes to sexuality.

To be clear, I think we should all have a chance to develop our own ideas of goodness and badness in the context of sexuality, but it doesn't do anyone any good to claim that everything is good all the time. In fact, it can be more of a hindrance than a help in the long run.

Telling someone they are normal may provide momentary relief. But once they get back out into the world they'll be reminded almost immediately that not everything is treated as normal. Sexual normality and sexual normativity, are complicated and slippery concepts, but they also carry tremendous power and heft. Whether or not we agree that a certain act should be considered normal, we all know that the label of normalcy has palpable effects in the world. To say everything is normal denies the power of normal to affect people for better and for worse and in the end that doesn't help anyone.

I've been trying to think of a good analogy for what I think is problematic about using normality to try and help people explore and express their sexuality. What first came to my mind was that using normal to help people with sexuality is like using a gun to promote peace. It's a good line, but I think it's imprecise. Instead I've come up with this:

Using normality to alleviate sexual shame is like using capitalism to alleviate poverty. Capitalism creates, distributes, and requires poverty. Sexual normalcy creates, distributes, and requires sexual shame. There is no capitalism without poverty. And there is no sexual normalcy without sexual shame.

This means, among other things, that the problem with normal isn't just that it's too narrowly defined. The problem is systemic; it's built right into the concept. After all normality itself is defined more by what it isn't, by what is considered abnormal, than it is defined by what it is. Definitions of deviant or exceptional sexuality precede definitions of normal sexuality. We came up with the construct of homosexuality before heterosexuality, the publicly articulated identity transgender preceded that of cisgender. Normal relies on the marginalization of some to define others. Adding to those in the center doesn't stop the force of pushing others to the margins. And simply telling people on the margins that they're actually in the center doesn't alleviate the very real pressures pushing them out if it.

So what's the point of all this? Well I'm not entirely sure. I've been wrestling with ideas of normal both personally and professionally for almost two decades and I don't have any solid answers. Over the next few weeks I'm going to blog more about normal, kind of a normal-sexuality-blog-carnival-of-one if you will. And I think I'm going to take as my inspiration a suggestion I got from a friend and colleague who said that instead of focusing so much on what normal is we'd be better off focusing on what normal does. It seems to me a good place to start.

| Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum |

about.com | 19-Mar-2012 11:12

Maybe Another Reason to Maybe Get Circumcised. Maybe.

This week an article published in the journal Cancer documents a possible connection between being circumcised and having a lower risk of prostate cancer. Possible, as always, is the key word here.

The study compared data from 1,754 men who were diagnosed with prostate cancer and compared them with about the same number of men who do not have prostate cancer. The researchers interviewed both groups of men in-person and asked them questions about a variety of things including whether or not they were circumcised, the age at which they were circumcised, and the age at which they first engaged in "sexual intercourse" (the paper doesn't say whether they specified penile-vaginal intercourse, but they do report that about 2.5% of the total sample had male sexual partners).

They found that men who were circumcised before they first had sexual intercourse were 15 percent less likely to develop prostate cancer than uncircumcised men.

They note that this is only an observation. There is no way of knowing what role, if any, being circumcised had in this 15% difference. Still, they went looking for this based on the theory that infections, including sexually transmitted infections, increase the risk of getting prostate cancer and the theory that being circumcised reduces one's risk of getting a sexually transmitted infections. If these theories are all correct, then they propose it follows that circumcision would offer protection against prostate cancer.

It's a lot of theories to string together, and as the authors make clear this is just the beginning. Many questions remain. Aside from whether or not it's possible to isolate a factor like circumcision from all other factors in order to say that it confers this or that benefit in disease prevention, I'm curious about how to square this research with the findings that adult male circumcision is protective against HIV. That research remains controversial, and other studies have produced other findings, but it's interesting to think about how we talk and think about circumcision when we are mostly talking about treatment of brown people in Africa as opposed to how we think about it when we are talking about white people in North America.

It's not that there aren't plenty of African American men with prostate cancer. Actually they have the highest rates of prostate cancer. But they are also more than twice as likely than their white counterparts to die from prostate cancer, a health disparity which speaks to just who prevention and treatment in North America is geared to (here's a hint: it's the people who can pay for it).

All of this leaves me only more confused about what to think of circumcision as a health intervention and about how exactly to help parents who are trying to make decisions about circumcision based on the available evidence.

Read More: MSNBC.com: Circumcision Tied to Lower Prostate Cancer Risk

Previously - San Francisco Votes on Circumcision Ban ; Research Insights from the Male Circumcision-HIV Protection Trials ; Is Mass Circumcision a Good Idea?

Source:
Wright, J.L., Lin, D.W. & Stanford, J.L. "Circumcision and the Risk of Prostate Cancer" Cancer. Published online March 12, 2012.

| Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum |

about.com | 13-Mar-2012 22:10

Friday Readings in Sex

From longest to shortest, three readings from this week in sex:

Dahlia Lithwick on the story behind the story of Lawrence v. Texas (The New Yorker)

s.e. smith on what's missing from the critique of Rush (xojane)

Elizabeth Boskey on condoms on the red carpet (About.com)

| Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum |

about.com | 09-Mar-2012 01:01

Why Sex Matters

There are so many ways that people who identify as asexual have enriched public discussions of sexuality. Among them is the question of why sex matters to us personally. Yes, yes, we all know that certain kinds of sexual activities assist in the continuation of our species. But is that one of the reasons you care about sex?

If you're not a particularly neurotic person you may be asking, why do I need to know WHY sex matters to me? Isn't enough that it does?

This is a fair comment. And if you were reading someone who wasn't quite so neurotic they might agree. But that wouldn't make them right.

If sex is anything, it's multi-layered. A cigar may sometimes be just a cigar, but even then it's got an outside and an inside, it has weight and texture and taste. It has the ability to arouse some and disgust others. Even just a cigar is never just a cigar.

Ask yourself just how much your interest in sex comes from social expectations, how much comes from the messages you have been raised with, how much comes from whatever we mean by "hard wiring." Why does sex matter to you as much or as little as it does? How has that changed over time?

It's not as if the answers to these questions themselves will be revelatory to you. But asking them can be.

If all of this questioning and answering seems theoretical I promise it's also practical. Most people who I meet who are struggling with some aspect of their sexual expression or identity benefit from thinking through some of these questions and finding their own answers.

This week's sex tip offers a way for anyone to start this process. It doesn't require a partner, or an active sex life, or any formal education. Give it a try.

Sex Tips for the Rest of Us: Why Sex Matters

Read all Sex Tips for the Rest of Us

| Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum |

about.com | 06-Mar-2012 12:32

When the Sex Question Isn't Why

This week's sex question came from an About.com reader who is in a great relationship and with their partner they've made a wonderful family that they don't want to lose. The problem is that her and her partner have had sex exactly one time in the past three years.

Reading her story and her questions I couldn't help but think about how we often treat the idea of a "sexless relationship" as if all relationships are the same. And how her situation was so different from some others I hear about in the course of my work and my life. Neither her nor her partner were particularly concerned with why their sexual attraction wasn't there anymore. They both knew a time when having sex with friends or strangers was part of their sex lives and a part that they enjoyed. But since having a child and being in a relationship for an extended period of time they'd stopped that.

It was clear that what was happening wasn't something that could be resolved by a new sex position or technique. Nor does it seem like there are serious relationship issues that are playing out in their sex life.

Offering something useful to people who have questions without making a lot of assumptions or inserting my own values and biases is both the hardest and most gratifying part of my job. Here's how I responded to this week's question:

Great Relationship But No Sex.

Read all Sex Q & As from About.com

| Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum |

about.com | 01-Mar-2012 12:57

Sex::Tech Brings Together Leaders in New Media, Youth, and Sexual Health

March is around the corner which means so is Sex::Tech. For full disclosure I should say that I was so impressed by the first Sex::Tech conference held in 2008 that I became a volunteer board member of ISIS, the non-profit organization the following year, and I'm proud to be involved with the organization and to be attending for the fifth year in a row.

As a sex educator it's one of the few conferences that I go to every year and every year come away with half a dozen things I learned that I make use of right away in my work.

This year's line up is no exception. It starts on Saturday March 31st with a developer challenge (the "first ever hack-a-thon for youth health"). Then there are two days of workshops, plenaries, panels, and hanging out in the hallways with people whose jobs you didn't even know existed before you met them.

One of the best parts of the conference is the number of youth who attend. Having the people who are ostensibly being served in the room when service providers are talking can dramatically change the kinds of conversations that happen in those rooms and the way the conversations themselves happen.

They have limited space left, but if you're interested check out the site. They have discounted rates for youth and for adults who come with youth.

Sex::Tech 2012 Official Site

| Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum |

about.com | 28-Feb-2012 01:01

'Round About Sex: Can Beer be Romantic?

About.com recently reached a milestone, their 1,000th Guide. That's 1,000 actual people (not aggregators, not algorithms, not even monkeys who can type) each of whom has both some expertise and a lot of passion for a particular subject.

Most of the time I'm so busy writing sexuality information and education for my site that I don't get to look around About, beyond my own colleagues in the Health Channel. But now and then I put on my visiting coat and venture out to see what other guides are writing about and when I find something related to my topic I share it with you.

This installment comes from Beer Guide Bryce Eddings. I imagine this was inspired by Valentine's Day, but there's so much more to think about in his article Romancing the Stein. It's an ode to beers versatility both economically and romantically, and it raises, I think, important questions about why romance, and I'll say more broadly sex, needs to be seen as special, expensive, and unique.

The truth for most of us is that if sex or romance were an everyday event we wouldn't mind so much. I think there's a fear that if somehow you had great sex regularly, or felt desired and romanced all the time, that you would then not need or want your partner anymore. I don't think that's the way these things work. But the fear of finding out keeps most of us from trying.

Bryce doesn't go this far, instead he offers plenty of excellent suggestions for romantic beers, and a compelling argument for not even trying to compare beer to something more classically romantic like Champagne. It's useful and inspiring. Check it out:

About.com's Guide to Beer: Romancing the Stein

Previously - Aphrodisiac Foods, Aristophanes on Love, Pilates for Sex.

| Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum |

about.com | 23-Feb-2012 01:01

One Thing You Don't Need for Sex

A few weeks ago I got an email from a reader who was at a loss at what to do with her boyfriend's soft penis. She had a bunch of other questions, so I felt like I should address those first, but her being flummoxed in the face of flaccidity left me frustrated.

Without a doubt the most freeing sexual realization I made as an adult was that you don't need an erection to have sex. You don't even need a penis! I could be forgiven for thinking otherwise. It's the very crux of heterocentrism, and it's a message you get from all corners. But I learned my lesson, and it's one that has informed not only my personal but my professional life ever since.

To be clear, I'm not down on penises. Some of my best friends...oh whatever. I think they are great. But the idea that your partner not having an erection means you can't have sex is a problem. So for that reader, and anyone else out there who may be genuinely confused about what to do with a soft penis, I put together a few sex tips.

How to Play with a Soft Penis.

Related - Sexual Activity Guide.

| Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum |

about.com | 20-Feb-2012 10:12

When You Want to Want to Have Sex

This week I got an email from an About.com reader who is in a loving relationship, with a man they adore, but who isn't having the kind of sex they want, isn't feeling the desire they crave, and doesn't see how anything could change.

I've known many people who were in perfectly terrible relationships - no communication, completely different values, different interests and aspirations - who nonetheless had great sex, regularly. And of course I've also spoken to many others who were in relationships that fit like a best friend, only without any sex. When you think about it, it's a pretty tall order to expect so much from one relationship. And if you're lucky enough to have honest conversations with lots of different people about relationships and sex you learn pretty quick that no one has it exactly easy.

What took me a while to think through before responding to this reader was that she identified the problem as being about her husband's disability. There were positions she wanted to do that he simply could not get into. He suggested modifications, she wasn't sure.

In my response I suggest that while she seems to know what she's looking for, she may be looking in the wrong place, and possibly missing the fact that this relationship could work. I think the barrier isn't his body or her body as much as it is the dilemma of wanting to want someone, but not wanting them. The fantasy of the perfect sexual partner is always within our masturbatory reach, but it's a fantasy and for those of us who want to make a life with people, sometimes you do have to turn away, momentarily, from the fantasy.

It's not the fun thing to do or always the sexiest thing to do, but if you want to be wanted back, it's kind of necessary.

Sex Question of the Week: I Wish I Wanted to Have Sex With My Husband

Read all About.com Sex Questions and Answers

| Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum |

about.com | 14-Feb-2012 02:41

American Ecstasy - Interview with Barbara Nitke

I have a serious crush on Kickstarter. If you aren't familiar with the site, they describe themselves as "the world's largest funding platform for creative projects." Through Kickstarter I've been a part of making eight books, five films, one calendar, one art show, one graphical assistive device, and one window farm company make their dreams a reality. Which also means I got all that stuff to show for it. Not all the projects I've backed with a contribution (I've given everywhere from $5 to $150) are related to sexuality, but for creative people who want to do work around sexuality Kickstarter offers an amazing way to find out if there's an audience for what you want to do, and if there is, to do the work exactly the way you want, and not simply the way that a publisher, distributor, or marketer things it will sell.

And it was through Kickstarter that I learned about photographer Barbara Nitke's newest project. American Ecstasy is a photo book collecting images and writing from 1982 - 1991 during which time Nitke shot publicity stills for hundreds of porn shoots in New York City.

I wanted to learn more about the project, so I asked Nitke if she would answer a few questions about her work, the new book, and crowd sourcing as an alternative to working with publishers.

You've been photographing sexuality, in various ways and through various lenses, for over 30 years. Have you noticed any changes in attitudes to your work and to the people whose lives you document? I think people are becoming more open about sex, and more used to sex as a subject. I guess you could say they're jaded or desensitized, but I see it as a positive change. I've noticed that when I talk about my sexual photography, people ask a lot more questions than they used to. And they usually just think it's interesting that I have chosen this subject. Of course the change I'd love to see is more people hanging my work above their fireplaces! Why are you publishing this collection now? Is it a nostalgic look back or do you see connections between how we are talking about and thinking about sexuality today and how we thought about it 30 years ago? Actually I would have published it before if it had been possible. I've been trying to find a publisher for years! But the book contains hardcore images, and although many publishers like it, they have shied away from taking it on. I finally decided that this is a good moment to do it myself. I think the timing is good because people are more open to porn as a serious subject. It's a nostalgic look back to a time when porn movies were made like real Hollywood movies, but it also deals with themes that are timeless. In 2012 when porn chic has come and gone and the industry is financially imploding due in no small part to it's own myopic self-interest, I hate to sound cynical but can you tell me what's so interesting about porn sets and porn actors? When I went to work on porn movies I was 31, and I was just coming into my own sexually, so being around so much sex at that moment in my life was very powerful. In some ways the book is about my own coming of age and becoming comfortable with what would really become my lifelong subject, sex. It's also about my exploration of the conundrum of sex workers. Are they stars, taking charge of their lives? Or are they victims, used and later discarded by a heartless industry? It's an unanswerable question, but I believe it's well worth posing. You chose to use crowd source funding via Kickstarter to publish this newest book. One of the things I love about Kickstarter is the relationship it engenders between creator and audience. What has the response been so far to the project? Have people made suggestions or asked for anything in particular? As an artist is this a necessary evil or do you see a benefit to the process? I really love the process of creating something through Kickstarter. People have written me to suggest how to promote the project and they have send wonderful notes of encouragement. Some of my backers even threw a fundraising dungeon party for me! I really enjoy sense of community that Kickstarter creates. I also think it's a brilliant way to see if there is an audience for a project. I figured out how much it will cost me to publish my book, and if I don't get enough backing, I'll know that the book won't have enough of an audience to warrant publishing it. I'll be devastated, but I'll be saving myself a lot of heartache later on, along with a fortune in credit card debt! For people who haven't been to the project page yet, can you tell us about some of the things people get for backing your project? With a Kickstarter campaign, people who pledge money towards a project get rewards in return. In my case they can get various sizes of prints from the book, classic postcards of the Pussycat Theater in New York, specially made jewelry from the images, and of course signed copies of the book itself when it comes out in October. You've also become quite involved in activism around freedom of speech issues. Given the amount of time you've spent documenting sexual sub-cultures, is this now part of your job? Well I hope not! It would be nice if they would quit passing laws against free speech, so people like me could just do our work. I don't consider activism around free speech part of my job, it's just an outgrowth of who I am. I can't sit silent and let my work get censored by unfair laws. I understand if my work isn't someone's cup of tea, then of course they shouldn't look at it. But it's unfair to silence hoards of artists just because some people find sexual imagery offensive. But don't get me started!

Check out the American Ecstasy project page on Kickstarter.

Photo from American Ecstasy, used with permission by Barbara Nitke

| Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum |

about.com | 10-Feb-2012 01:01

RIP: Brenda Z. Greene, Advocate for School Based Sexual Health Programs

On Friday February 3 Brenda Greene passed away. Since 1987 Brenda was responsible for directing the school health programs for the National School Boards Association. She came in at a time when few were pushing for HIV/AIDS education in the schools and she was a tireless advocate for teachers and students, for good education and good health.

I never met Brenda but reading remembrances from colleagues who worked with her (as well as the memories that are posted here I wanted to learn more. Luckily there's a video of a debate she engaged in in 2003 at the University of Pittsburgh. You can watch her performance here. I highly recommend it.

I love her generous but matter of fact style, speaking plainly about the fact that "what goes on in public schools is no way close to comprehensive education" and responding to teachers who say the only 100% effective contraception is abstinence with the suggestion that "abstinence is not 100% effective; more vows of chastity have been broken than condoms will ever break."

National School Boards Association: NSBA Remembers Leading School Health Advocate

Related - Sexual Obituaries 2006 - 2011

| Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum |

about.com | 07-Feb-2012 15:37

When It Comes to Sex, Is it the Thought That Counts?

There are times when the saying "it's the thought that counts" fits. For example, if someone you don't know that well remembers your birthday, but forgets to buy you a gift, you might say "that's okay, it's the thought that counts" and mean it. But what if it's someone you are close to? Or a family member? Or what if it's any old friend and while they remember your birthday they neglect to call or email or even post something on your Facebook wall? They still thought about your birthday, only you never knew about it. Does there thinking count? And does it count as much as their actions?

I was thinking about this while answering a sex question from a reader. And it got me thinking about how these questions translate to sexual thoughts and actions. As a sex educator I'm often reminding people that our sexual thoughts and our sexual activities are different. Sometimes they match up, sometimes they don't. There's no reason they need to, and when it comes to sexual thoughts I'd say they all matter at least a little.

But let's say I really want to give my partner sexual pleasure, I think about it a lot, I may even worry about whether or not they are getting the pleasure they desire. But then when it comes down to it I'm too tired or too into my own pleasure and I don't turn my thoughts into actions. How likely is it that my partner - lying beside me unsatisfied while I drift off into blissful sleep - will say "don't worry, it's the thought that counts"?

In other words, how much does the thought count in bed? And how much of the answer has to do with the people involved as opposed to some philosophical understanding of the meaning of thought and action?

Read all About.com Sex Questions and Answers

| Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum |

about.com | 02-Feb-2012 11:50

The Penis Roller Coaster

Construction metaphors figure prominently in iconic images of erections. Tall objects built on a flat plane, penetrating the sky, standing firm and tall, immoveable and awe inspiring in their stand-out-ness, their pokey-tude. But real erections aren't constructed from raw materials, they aren't built so much as they are evoked. And the analogy with construction falls apart completely when you consider that no one has complete control over their erections, and erections can disappear as easily as they arise.

A roller coaster car might be a more apt metaphor. One of the few things we can say with absolute certainty about erections is that they go up and the come down. If you have a penis in your life - your own or someone else's - the temptation to obsess over the meaning of a lost erection can be powerful. But you'd do better in terms of both mental and physical health to focus more on why. If you need help getting to the right question, here are some tips that may help.

| Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum |

about.com | 26-Jan-2012 01:01

Calling for Better Care: New Recommendations for Sex and Heart Health

In the past, if you had a stroke, a heart attack, or a more minor event that led to a diagnosis of cardiovascular disease and you asked your doctor about your options for having sex, the response wouldn't be very encouraging. Something along the lines of it being better safe than sorry, so why not wait. How long you had to wait, and exactly what you had to wait to do was never clear. But there wasn't much research to guide doctors, and in a society where sex is seen more as a perk and privilege of youth, the prudent advice was to be grateful you're alive, and not push it.

Over the past few decades that advice has changing, thanks in large part to two different but connected research agendas. On the one hand we now have a reasonable amount of data suggesting that sexual activity represents a minor risk to people with stable cardiovascular disease. On the other we have research that points to the many physical, emotional, and psychological benefits of regularly engaging in sexual activity. So doctors not only have some concrete answers about risk, but they also have very good reasons to encourage people to resume sexual activity.

Last week the American Heart Association released a scientific statement (available for free download here) which summarizes the most recent research and advises physicians on the importance of talking with patients about sexuality and supporting their overall health by supporting their sexual health. Here are a few highlights from the statement, and some of the things I most appreciated them including:

Risk of Pain, Heart Attack, and Death Is Very Low
Using a term that is sure to appear on some hipster Valentine's Day cards this year, the authors point out that experiencing coital angina (in other words pain caused by a heart problem during coitus) happens in about 5% of all reported cases of angina. In other words, if you're going to feel pain it's more likely that you'll notice it first while exercises, shoveling snow, or doing any number of other activities before you'll feel it during sex.

Looking at reports of heart attacks, less than 1% were caused by sexual activity. For people who have heart disease and are having regular sex the risk goes down even further.

Sudden death during sex is incredibly rare. Reviewing three studies of autopsy reports where the death was related to a cardiovascular event, around 1% of the deaths were reported to have occurred during intercourse. For whatever it's worth in 75% of those cases, the reported intercourse was of the "extramarital" kind (whatever that means), and was with a younger partner, immediately following "excessive food and alcohol consumption". This is taken from medical reports of course, so there are probably major details being left out. Nonetheless, take out the drinking and the Oysters Rockefeller, and better yet, be honest with your partner about your sexual desires, and your chances of dying should bo way down.

Narrow Focus of Previous Research
It was nice to see the authors highlight how most of the research we have is based on heterosexual men engaging in penile-vaginal intercourse. These men aren't the only ones who get heart disease, and there's more to sex than intercourse.

Counseling Is Needed
The statement advocates for physicians to begin counseling their patients on the general low risk of sexual activity, as well as specific information they need regarding birth control, pregnancy, the use of erectile dysfunction drugs, and more. The authors highlight depression and anxiety as two common experiences that are related to cardiovascular disease which can on the one hand make engaging in sexual activity more challenging, and on the other are experiences that can be to some extent alleviated by pleasurable sexual activity.

More About Sex and Heart Health From About.com:

| Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum |

about.com | 24-Jan-2012 01:01

Sexual Surrogacy Comes to Sundance

A new film, The Surrogate, has it's first screening on Monday at the Sundance Film Festival. According to the description of the film in the festival program, it's based on the writings of Mark O'Brien. O'Brien was a journalist and poet who wrote frankly and vividly about his life, most of which was spent inside an iron lung. One of his most shared pieces of journalism was an article he wrote about seeing a sexual surrogate. That article used to be available for free online but unfortunately it seems to have disappeared. Apparently this film is about the relationship between Mark and the surrogate he hired, Cheryl Cohen Greene.

Given Hollywood's track record when it comes to representing disability on film it's hard to imagine a film could do justice to O'Brien, whose words could cut through so much bullshit while at times elevating potty talk to an art form (see for example his poem Letter to an Orange County Social Worker published in Mouth Magazine).

That the director, Ben Lewin, identifies himself as disabled, and in fact acquired his disability as a result of polio, may lead one to think the representations will be more complicated. Watching an interview with the director where he refers to O'Brien's "little journey to manhood" isn't a great sign, but it's not fair to pre-judge. It could be a tremendous dramatic feature, and having had friends who have worked as sexual surrogates, and plenty more who do other kinds of sex work**, there is no doubt that the relationships are complicated and rich.

If you're interested in seeing an actual representation of Mark's life and work before you see the fake one, I can't recommend enough the Academy Award winning documentary that Jessica Yu made with and about Mark, Breathing Lessons. And by some act of grace, the film is available for viewing online, for free!

SnagFilms.com - Watch Breathing Lessons

**I want to point out that most sexual surrogates would take exception to me connecting their work to sex work. Officially surrogates almost always distinguish what they do from sex work, and this is their right. I tend to see the distinctions as having varying degrees of legitimacy, and I see far more similarities than differences. But that is only one perspective.

| Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum |

about.com | 20-Jan-2012 01:01

When Moving Is Bad for Sex

It may be hard to imagine sex without moving, but sometimes it's the moving that makes it hard to imagine ever having sex.

This week instead of answering one sex question in particular I took inspiration from about a half dozen questions I've received over the past year all about whether or not it's "normal" for your sex life to slow down after you move in with a partner.

Of course "normal" is code, and in this case I think it's code for a few things: predictable, okay, understandable, something to worry about.

I tried to write a response using as little code as possible, and to offer some post-moving sex tips for those who are unhappy with the situation, whether it's okay or not.

Related: Sex Tips for the Rest of Us

| Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum |

about.com | 18-Jan-2012 01:01

Pee in Peace: Using Technology to Counter Bathroom Violence

I'm already getting excited about this year's Sex::Tech conference. For the past five years ISIS has organized a one of a kind international conference devoted to the newest developments in sexual health and technology. One thing I'm often struck by is how the most successful projects are often the simplest. Recently I heard about a new app which I think is a good example of this. I wanted to know more so I virtually sat down with Maureen Kelly, who is part of the team behind the new app and the Vice President for Programming and Communications at Planned Parenthood of the Southern Finger Lakes, which commissioned the app.

When I first saw the name of your app, Pee in Peace, I thought maybe it was some kind of white noise generator, designed for people with shy bladders. But that's not it at all. Can you explain what the app does?

I love your idea, maybe the next version could have a soundtrack as well! The app is a very simple GPS-enabled service to help someone in Ithaca, New York quickly and easily find a single stall or gender neutral restroom. Once a restroom is selected from the vetted list, the app will provide either walking or driving directions for quick access. The app provides detailed location info (e.g., 'go to the right of the bakery counter at the back of the hallway'), information about wheelchair accessibility, hours the restroom is open and if the restroom is publish or for customers of a business.

Aren't the locks on bathroom stalls enough to let us all pee in peace? Why is this needed?

We wish a lock was enough! Sadly, the day to day reality for many people who do not readily fit into expected and conventional norms of gender presentation, a public bathroom can be a hostile and violent place. We drew research and inspiration from the amazing work of the Transgender Law Center, if you're someone who likes seeing the data in detail, please check out their PDF. You can also read more about bathroom woes from a former peer educator, here.

As the partner of a trans person for almost 20 years, I have watched the discomfort and concern take hold and impact the simple act of being able to safely find and use a public restroom while out at a movie or the grocery store. Many people don't bat and eye but when someone does take notice it can be jarring and quite frightening; I realize that the app will not help change those attitudes and beliefs that inspire bigotry and cruelty toward people who may not readily fit into expected and conventional norms of gender presentation...but hopefully it can help to just find a decent place to pee in a sometimes cruel and narrow-minded world. You have to start somewhere.

How did you develop the list of bathrooms?

With grant funds we were able to hire two college students from Ithaca College to walk and drive around town and create a very long list of restrooms. We then worked together with Planned Parenthood staff, local LGBT leaders, and community volunteers to come up with questions and criteria to use to rate each restroom and decide if they were worthy of inclusion on our list.

Are you able to see how many people are using the app? What sort of feedback have you been getting?

We just launched the app this week so we'll have to see! And the feedback so far - as we were developing the concept and now that it has launched - has been positive and grateful. We've been most touched by the immediate appreciation from people who totally get it and tell us how personally useful it is to have the info at the touch of a screen.

It's funny how things that we touch can touch us back. Are there plans to expand the app outside of Ithaca and outside of those who have iPhones?

Yes, we do indeed know that not everyone has an iPhone...we are seeking funding for a Droid platform and will continue to work on increasing access to info to let everyone pee in peace. We have big dreams about new locations and we welcome inquires about becoming a Pee in Peace Partner in other regions!

Find Out More - Pee in Peace

| Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum |

about.com | 17-Jan-2012 01:01

XOXOSMS: Can online love work IRL?

If you haven't figured out what you're doing on Valentine's Day yet (and if you have, how are you that organized, or into Valentine's Day?) I recommend you spend part of it with Nancy Schwartzman.

Not in person. That might be weird (after all I don't know her very well and she may have plans already). But online. You should see her online.

She'll be screening her short documentary film XOXOSMS: The Internet Love Documentary several times throughout the day, and then following it up with a live panel discussion featuring with some pretty great bloggers and writers talking about 21st century dating.

I got to see a preview of the film last night. I watched it online with my partner, who is living 500 miles away, while we were both on Skype. Which seemed fitting since the film is all about online relationships, like the kind we're having.

XOXOSMS follows Gus and Jiyun, who connect, and fall in love, online without ever meeting in real life. They eventually decide to meet in person and the film takes us along for the intimate, sometimes awkward, but ultimately fascinating ride.

The film does an excellent job of conveying the kind of intimacy that builds, and builds quickly, when you are communicating with someone online. It may resonate less for those who haven't spent hours on IM, Skype, or email, finding ways to express excitement, curiosity, desire, and longing in a medium that, on the surface of it, seems to be set up for anything but emotional expression. But for anyone who has tried Internet dating, flirted online, or even spent a bit too much time on Facebook, XOXOSMS takes you there in a way that few other documentaries have.

So much exploration of online intimacy is really just code for cybersex. XOXOSMS stands out as a rare film about online relationships that isn't about sex, at least not in any obvious way. This isn't cybersex as we know it, but it is a very real story about the way millions of us are connecting online.

What's nice is that the film offers more than just theory or talking heads explaining how, yes Virginia, you can feel something when you're online. Gus and Jiyun talk about their experiences, but they also share with us a live history of their online connections, the emails, the IMs, the Skype calls, all of which, thanks to the web, are documented and archived.

Through these interactions we're able to see for ourselves how communication technologies can simultaneously extend and produce emotional intimacy. I was particularly struck by the scenes where they are communicating online using video and text but no voice. The immediacy of the interaction and what can only be described as a kind of physical chemistry they share, challenges traditional ideas of which forms of communication are most human, most valuable, most intimate.

For educators XOXOSMS provides an invaluable tool, offering a quick way into conversations about intimacy in platonic, romantic, and sexual relationships, about sexuality more broadly, about desire and identity, and finally about technology and it's role in human interactions.

Now I wasn't joking about this being a perfect Valentine's Day thing to do. While I was watching it, both my partner and I were confused at times when we would hear familiar clicks, dings, and whooshes, thinking that the sounds were coming from our computers, announcing the arrival of some new email, IM, or download. In fact they were part of the soundtrack of the film. But each time it happened it made us aware of the ways that these sounds have come to have emotional meaning for us, and how much of our relationship currently is tangled up in technology. It inspired a conversation about our relationship, about intimacy, about sex and love, that was surprising, but welcome.

It's not a bad thing to do any day, but seems particularly welcome on Valentine's Day.

Find out more about XOXOSMS.

Get a reminder about the Valentines Day screening

| Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum |

about.com | 13-Jan-2012 18:26

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Sexual Mountaintop

Over the holidays I had time to catch up on my favorite podcast. It's WTF with Marc Maron, and if you haven't listened to it before, you should. Maron, a comedian and performer who among other things had a radio show on Air America, has been doing the podcast since 2009, though is new to me. It's definitely not for everyone, but you have to respect how hard Maron works and how intense he is about the things he cares about. Mostly the things he cares about are himself. But luckily he's aware of his connection to, and commonalities with, all other human beings and one way he tries to figure himself out - why he thinks, acts, and feels the ways he does - is to interview other comedians (and the occasional non-comedian) and demand the same thoughtfulness and honesty from them that he is trying to extract from himself.

As someone who cares a lot about people's feelings and who tries to have conversations that are open and inviting to lots of different people with different kinds of experience, my relationship to comedy is a bit sketchy. On the one hand there are things that a good sex educator has in common with a good comedian. And there are moments when I think that the most honest public discussion of sex (especially from straight men) is coming from comedians. On the other, so much comedy seems to be about taking the most obvious, ham-fisted, stereotypes and encouraging one group of people to laugh at another. And most of it rivals porn in it's simplistic and uncreative understanding of sexuality.

For a while I just avoided comedy unless I knew the people doing it and had a sense that they shared some of my basic values. I think that was kind of a cop-out and have more recently begun to wonder if I'm just getting good and bad comedy confused. I'm still trying to figure it out. Listening to WTF helps. It also makes me laugh a lot. And since Maron talks about everything, sex comes up. Not as often as I'd like, but when it does it's usually thought provoking.

For example last week I was listening to this episode where Maron describes how being in a long term or committed sexual relationship with one person can change the way sex happens (or doesn't) in that relationship. He's talking about his own life, but instead of going off on some rant about how commitment or marriage ruins sex, he describes a kind of everyday intimacy that can develop between partners (his examples include: farting on one another in bed and using the bathroom with the door open) and argues that intimacy, that familiarity, is setting him up to have less sex.

In his mind the problem is that once you establish this kind of intimacy it takes work to reframe your interactions and get yourself into a kind of raw sexual space, stripped of the film daily of flatulence and bowl routines (unless, of course, that's what your into). You're already exposed and vulnerable (one of those unspoken reasons most of us have sex) so to initiate sex requires you to shift what you're paying attention to; from comfort to desire, from ease to agitation. It's an insightful and really open hearted explanation of why keeping your sex life hot and active is sometimes a challenge in a long term relationship.

I was equally intrigued by the next thing he said. He said that having achieved a level of intimacy in a relationship can make sex scary because that's when it gets really deep. He said it's scary because, in his words, it has to be pure so it will be a connection that honors the depths of your intimacy. And this, perhaps surprisingly to some, is where I think he's going awry. It's not that his feelings or explanation are wrong. It's that in talking with thousands of people about their sex lives, I recognize this statement as one of the classic ways that people get sexually stuck.

I think the easiest way to ruin sex in a long term relationship, or to get yourself stuck in a sexual rut at any time is to tell yourself that each time you have sex it MUST mean something. Whatever that something is (depth, purity, or something else), putting that kind of existential weight on sex is a sure way to make you avoid it.

I think you absolutely can have meaningless, selfish sex with someone you've been with for 10, 20, or 50 years and to whom you remain deeply and lovingly connected. Having sex, being sexual with a partner, isn't a one-way ride up a mountain (or if you prefer, down a mineshaft) where you reach and end point of such height or depth that you are bestowed a sexual wisdom that you get to keep forever. Sex is much more of a roller coaster ride. Sex can be an opportunity for the two (or more) of you to connect on a deeper level. But it can also be a form of parallel play, where you're both in the same room feeling good, even if you're thinking about two completely different things.

I think this is one of the things that makes the idea of simultaneous orgasm such an enduring mythic goal of partnered sex; the assumption that if you come at the same time you're perfectly in sync. But two people can come at the same time and one of them could be thinking of the last time they jerked off watching porn and the other could be thinking of their first one night stand. Does it diminish the pleasure they experience? Should it?

Check it out: WTF with Marc Maron (recent episodes are available for free download, but it's worth it to pay for access to the archives!)

| Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum |

about.com | 09-Jan-2012 01:01

New Study Untangles Sexual Satisfaction, Desire, and Activity Among Older Women (and the Rest of Us)

A study published this week in the American Journal of Medicine challenges some of ways we tend to think about and talk about sex and aging, and as importantly, challenges the dominant medical frame on sexuality, which focuses on dysfunction rather than satisfaction or pleasure.

The study asked just over 800 women aged 40 to 99 to respond to surveys about their recent sexual activity, overall sexual satisfaction, and sexual desire. The women were not representative of the general population, they all came from suburb of San Diego and have been involved in a longitudinal research project called the Rancho Bernardo Study which began in 1972. So the findings shouldn't be thought of as highly generalizable, but instead as an interesting snapshot of one group of women in one place at one time.

The women were asked if they had engaged in sexual activity in the past four weeks. In this study sexual activity was described as including caressing, foreplay, masturbation, and penile-vaginal intercourse. In analyzing the data the researchers divided the women into four age groups, each with about 200 women in them. Here are some of the basic findings of the study:

50% of the women reported having had sex in the previous 4 weeks and 80% of those women were living with a partner/spouse.

40% of all respondents said that they never or almost never felt sexual desire, and 30% of women who were having sex said they felt low, very low, or no sexual desire.

64% of all respondents said they were moderately or very satisfied with their sexual relationship.

64% of women who had sex in the past 4 weeks reported being aroused most times, almost always, or always.

67% said they achieved orgasm most times, almost always, or always; women in the youngest and oldest groups reported the highest orgasm satisfaction.

These findings highlight how slippery statistics are. After all, if I chose to tell you that 40% of women over forty years old said they almost never felt sexual desire you'd probably feel bad for those women, right? But of those women 67% who were actually having sex almost always had orgasms, 64% felt aroused and were satisfied with the sex they were having. So which number matters most?

This is the problem with quantitative research; it can never answer that question. But this study does give us a lot more to think about. For example:

Sexual Activity and Sexual Satisfaction are Not the Same
This is a no brainer for anyone who has had bad sex (which I believe would be everyone who has had sex). If you've had sex more than a couple times you've probably had sex that wasn't very satisfying, and even sex that, in retrospect, you could have done without (I'm not including non-consensual sex here, which by definition is sex you don't want).

But studies and statistics can easily confuse us, and most of us probably think at least a little bit about how much sex we're having and whether or not we should be having more.

The women in this study offer a cautionary note about this way of thinking. When divided up by age, women in the youngest group were most sexually active; 83% of women in the youngest group were sexually active as opposed to 13% of women in the oldest group. But women in the oldest group reported the highest levels of sexual satisfaction; 25% of younger women reported being very satisfied as opposed to 48% of women in the oldest group who were very satisfied.

One thing stats like this might lead us to think about is how important the frequency of sexual activity is. It might also get us thinking about how the researchers defined sexual activity and what these folks might be doing outside that definition that's making them "very satisfied".

Which Comes First: Desire, Arousal, or Sexual Activity?
Traditionally it is thought that first we experience a desire to have sex, we then feel aroused (or turned on) and finally we go ahead and have ourselves some sexual activity. It's an old, but still widely used model of sexual response. It's also one of the most obvious disconnects between people's lived experience of sex and the way that sex researchers talk about sex. If you ask almost anyone to really think carefully and thoughtfully about the difference between desire and arousal, most people will begin to describe overlap. Is desire just a mental thought and arousal the physical sensation? What about when you just feel in your body that you want to have sex, and there's no thought there? And what about when you're so nervous about it going well that you actually don't feel turned on or comfortable until you've started actually having sex of some kind?

In this study 50% of women 80 and older reported that they didn't feel sexual desire. But they also reported feeling aroused and experiencing orgasm most of the time. Suggesting that desire to have sex (the current target of so much pharmaceutical wrangling) may not be all it's cracked up to be if the goal is to enjoy the sex you have.

In fact as sex educators often point out, increasing desire for sex without helping people figure out how to have sex they actually enjoy, could actually make things worse. The idea that all we need is sexual desire is a big business misdirect.

The final surprise in this study comes from the authors themselves. Maybe the surprise is a reflection of what I (unfairly) expect from physicians, but after considering the data the authors choose to focus not only on one or two data points which indicate dissatisfaction or which point to the possibility of dysfunction, but instead to consider the bigger picture this study offers, to which they suggest that overall:

"A more positive approach to female sexual health focusing on sexual satisfaction may be more beneficial to women than a focus limited to female sexual activity or dysfunction."

And unlike the particular responses of these particular women, I'd add that this more positive approach is one that we would all benefit from, regardless of age, gender, orientation, the kind of sex we're having, or the kind of sex we'd like to be having.

Source: Trompeter, S.E., Bettencourt, R., & Barrett-Connor, E. "Sexual Activity and Satisfaction in Healthy Community-Dwelling Older Women," American Journal of Medicine Vol. 125, No. 1 (2012): 37-43.

| Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum |

about.com | 06-Jan-2012 01:01

My Ejaculation Situation

I'm making one New Year's resolution. I get many great questions by email and I don't have time to respond to them all. This is something I feel bad about. My resolution for this year is to not only reply to a few more questions each week, but to try and publish at least one response a week. And as a sub-resolution I'm going to try and feel less bad about the whole thing. I think I have a good chance of achieving one of these goals.

This week's question comes from a 53 year old who is feeling pressure about ejaculation. Actually he isn't feeling the pressure like he used to, and that's his question.

Read on: Help for Low Pressure Ejaculation

WebRemixed

sexuality

News