Category Archives: sexuality

beliefs, freedom of speech, people, personal, quotes, sexuality, thoughts

Post 1000: Apologia

As this is, as best I can calculate, my 1000th weblog posting, I figured I ought to say something significant.

A few days ago we were in a restaurant with friends and the discussion turned to blogging. One of them asked why people blog, as she had never felt the need to. Naturally this made me think about why I blog.

Journal. It acts as a sort of (in my case informal) journal for ideas. A way of documenting things I find amusing, interesting or important and which I probably wouldn’t otherwise capture, if only because I’m lazy about writing things down cogently and I’m trying to get rid of mountains of paper, not collect more.

Enjoyment. Yes, this is something I enjoy doing. I wouldn’t enjoy having to write something to order every day, hence the London bus irregularity with which items appear here. I do it when I want to do it, not to some schedule.

Catalysis. As a practising catalyst, blogging gives me a way to spread my ideas, albeit to a small and self-selecting audience (which is fine by me!).

So what’s all this about then?

Noreen and I chose not to have children but to be available to help our friends, family and their children (hereinafter “friend”). This is, to me, part of being a catalyst and a facilitator, and part of why I’m here (assuming there is some “purpose” to life).

Why? Because no parent, however good (and most do a thankless job brilliantly), can ever provide everything their child needs. We don’t live in an ideal world – that would be so boring – so there will always be something a kid doesn’t want to talk to parents about, whether that’s girl/boyfriends, bullying, sexuality, money, dropping out of university, or whatever. (And of course the equivalent applies to adults too!) We offer to be there if any of our friends needs to talk about anything (literally, anything), needs a refuge, needs someone to stand bail – and all in confidence, of course. We always make this offer to our friends’ children as soon as they are old enough to understand what this really means (usually in their early to mid-teens).

Part of this is so the friend has that needed ear/refuge/whatever. But also so that they can have a different perspective on their situation, different ideas, which hopefully will help them resolve their situation and develop. Blogging is another aspect of this, albeit at a slight remove.

Democracy. I’ve observed elsewhere (see, for instance, here and here) that in a (democratic) society, morals and ethics are the consensus of the beliefs of the people, and that progress and change are made by those with differing views challenging that consensus.

As one of the working thinkers in such a democratic society I see it as my professional duty to challenge the consensus view where I believe it to be in error. (Equally when I was working I saw it as my professional duty to challenge management stupidity and misunderstanding when I came across it. Not popular, but for me the moral obligation of a conscientious professional.)

For me this is especially important in matters where I see the repressive moralities of others trying to close down freedom of choice, expression, belief; for example the moral right’s crusades against sexuality, nudity and perceived pornography. This was interestingly highlighted in a recent article in The Register; here are a few salient quotes [with my comments in italics]:

Censorship does more harm than good
…
A moral panic around childhood sexualisation and the dangers of the internet is closing down important channels of debate
…
The real problem, though, is that no one knows what “sexualisation” is: it is a convenient label used to position the child as always the victim, and then to pile every problem imaginable on top, including paedophilia, body image, sex trafficking and self-esteem. Once that particular juggernaut gets rolling, it is almost impossible to have a sensible debate about what’s really going on. [People become so frightened of being ostracised and/or victimised by the authorities that they daren’t speak and free speech disappears]
…
as soon as someone declares an image erotic [or pornographic, or violent], it is then analysed in that context, as opposed to being viewed for whatever it is
…
a major issue was the way in which childhood activity was being viewed through the looking glass of adult eroticism. “Showing your bum” is not a sexual activity for most eight-year-olds and should not be treated as such. [Arguably it isn’t a sexual activity for most 18-, or indeed 88-, year-olds either] “Sexting” is nothing new, but merely a modern manifestation of habits as old as dating and courtship [you show me yours and I’ll show you mine].

That was not to ignore the real danger of what happens when an image taken from one context (childhood play) becomes taken up in another (adult sexual interest). [It’s a question of balance and perspective, something we seem to have mislaid]
…
A moralising attitude makes it very dangerous for young people [read “anyone”] to discuss sexuality on the net [read “anywhere”] – and certainly to discuss sexual issues … closing off an important channel for exploration and seeking knowledge to teenagers.

Unless those of us who are more libertarian push back against challenges from the conservative right, society will regress to the more hypocritical behaviour patterns of Victorian Age, with its strict pater familias figures allowing no freedom except their freedom and no dissension from their moralising diktats, while sexuality in all its guises goes back underground thus ensuring more (not less) abuse for the under-privileged majority.

How much better to have everything accepted, in the open, with people free to choose what they do and believe, thus reducing the scope for abuse and improving the opportunities for better (physical and mental) healthcare by making everything visible.

We didn’t fight the revolutionary war of the 1960s and ’70s only to see these hard won freedoms given away again.

Some people feel strongly about militarism, third world poverty, climate change or whatever, and hence blog or campaign about that. I feel strongly about the liberalisation of sexuality, body freedom, so-called pornography, free speech and the loosening of the stranglehold of religion and politics. So that’s mostly what I choose to write my more serious blog posts about and a part of why I blog.

I’m not the sort of person who in the 17th and 18th centuries would have had the confidence or money to publish salacious pamphlets – pamphlets were, after all, the blogs of their day. By creating weblogs, technology has opened up pamphleteering for many orders of magnitude more writers and audiences. Using that facility is, to me, all part of being a working thinker. And I choose to do it quietly rather than being out on the streets and “in yer face”.

Vanity. Belatedly I realised that there is also an element of vanity and attention seeking in why I blog. One of the things it seems my childhood has left me with is a need for attention. No, I don’t know why! Maybe one day I will. Or maybe it’s something to do with being male? I suspect this is a subtle reason why I blog, but I don’t think it is the main reason; if it were I would be productive of a whole lot more rubbish.

Would I have analysed this if it weren’t for blogging? No! So there’s another reason: self-discovery. What better reason
could one want?

beliefs, freedom of speech, ramblings, sexuality, thoughts

Questions about Sex Images

2 Comments

This post is about pornography and a couple of current fashions in same that I don’t understand. But first let’s get something fundamental out of the way …

What do I mean by pornography in this context? I mean the normal, relatively sane, heterosexual material which can be bought legally in the UK over the counter of the corner shop or licensed sex shop or found easily on the internet. I do not mean anything involving extreme violence, abuse, lack of consent, drugs, children, animals, unpleasant bodily excretions or anything illegal – none of which I would ever condone.

Yes, I admit it, I look at pornography. Well so what? I’m a normal red-blooded male, I still have a pulse and I’m a sexual libertarian (as long as it’s consensual). Most of us have seen (if not actively used) pornography at some point of our lives, with American research showing that almost 90% of young men and over 30% of young women actually use pornography – now translate that into how many have ever seen pornography. So it’s there, we all know it’s there, we all know what it contains and we all know that at the level I’m discussing it does next to bugger all harm.

Having cleared that up, can we now have an adult conversation about it, please?

So there are two things which seem to be fashionable in current pornography which I fail to understand, and which I would welcome someone knowledgeable explaining to me.

Firstly … Why does every female (and a significant minority of men too) have to have their pubic area clean shaven? Yes, it’s a fashion. It didn’t used to be this way. Look at porn images from 30-40 years ago and everyone is hairy. OK, I understand that the lack of hair gives a better view of the genitals, but that doesn’t require complete depilation. I also understand that depilated females are supposed to look younger and more virginal, but given the current concerns with child pornography I would have thought this is something most men (and women) would want to avoid! And I also know that some people prefer a lack of hair as it increases skin contact during sex. But that does not explain why 99% of females are significantly if not totally depliated. Yes by all means tidy the hairy bits up round the edges. We all get a haircut from time to time but we don’t all go around with our heads shaved, so why shave our pubes? What is it about our naturally hairy state that is so unacceptable? Is this something more than pure fashion? If so, why? I don’t get it.

Actually now I think about it I have a subsidiary question. Why is it that the majority of women appear to prefer non-hairy men. Many times I have heard girlies interviewed and give an “Eeeuuwwwww” reaction to the idea of a hairy man – particularly hairy chests and backs. What is it about hairy men that’s such a turn-off? Or again is this just fashion, perpetuated by the likes of the Chippendales?

OK, here’s my second question. One of most men’s dreams (GOK why) is being on the receiving end of fellatio given by some nubile sex goddess (or god). And of course this appears regularly as a pornographic image. But why, oh why, do the girls (I don’t look at the men!) performing the act always look at the camera and look bored? Oh, OK, they probably are bored. But wouldn’t it be a whole sight more erotic if they were concentrating on the job in hand and look as if they are enjoying it? Why must they look at the camera in that desultory way? Sure, eye contact is important to communication, but even at a time like this? Again, I don’t get it.

Now can anyone knowledgeable explain either of these phenomena, please? Are they just fashions or am I missing something deeper?

PS. If I start getting abusive comments they will be deleted, as will any comment which unnecessarily links to pornographic images. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, and to express it, but you are not entitled to do so in an abusive way. My rules! OK?

science, sexuality, thoughts

We're Unique!

What makes humans special and unique?

Well according to a recent Scientific American article it is very simple …

We masturbate.  A lot.

(Oh, come on, it’s not that shocking!)

But the uniqueness is that no other animal, including our close primate relatives, does.  The theory seems to be, at least in part, that it’s all to do with the ability of our well developed brains to create entirely novel and imaginary picture shows and videos.

I’ll leave it to you to follow the link and read the article.  It’s long, but it’s interesting, especially if you’re a science geek.

amusements, beliefs, current affairs, quotes, sexuality, thoughts

Quotes of the Week

Another in our occasional series of quotations encountered during he week which have struck me: because of their zen-ness, their humour, or their verisimilitude.

Although the world’s religions may differ fundamentally from one other in their metaphysical views, when it comes to their teachings on the actual practice of ethics, there is great convergence. All the faith traditions emphasize a virtuous way of being, the purification of the mind from negative thoughts and impulses, the doing of good deeds, and living a meaningful life.
[Dalai Lama]

Don’t forget those irregular verbs like hoggo, piggeri, swini, gruntum.
[pmh {at} cix]

Sex and money: the forked root of evil
[Ross Macdonald, The Drowning Pool]

Disbelief in magic can force a poor soul into believing in government and business.
[Tom Robbins]

Girls are like pianos. When they’re not upright, they’re grand.
[Benny Hill]

freedom of speech, medical, people, science, sexuality, thoughts

Obscene …

3 Comments

… and obscene is not a word I use often or lightly, but I am horrified at the story which is circulating of a New York doctor who is reducing the clitorises of young girls in the belief that they are abnormally large. In deference to my blood pressure I shall say no more here but refer you to the story over on The F-Word. If this is even half true the man (yes, a man, of course) is in my view a paedophile and child abuser.

Hat-tip: jillysheep.

beliefs, medical, science, sexuality, thoughts

Religion and Sex

“Religion** is bad for your sex life”, at least according to Dr Emily Nagoski.  And she should know as she’s a college health (and sex) educator in Massachusetts, with a doctorate in Health Behaviour and Human Sexuality and other degrees in counselling and psychology.  What I like is that she holds very firm and forthright views and isn’t afraid to air them.  In what she calls “my most offensive post yet” she says why she believes religion is bad for your sex life and how it is that she cannot choose to believe and have any faith.  Here are a few snippets:

Religion** is bad for your sex life. I don’t mean it doesn’t help, I mean it’s actively destructive […]

[…] religion is bad both at the individual level and at the cultural level. Individually, it results in inhibitions, shame, fear, guilt, bias against others, and acceptance of gender-based stereotypes. Culturally it results in the oppression of women and sexual minorities […] and the obstruction of the scientific study of sexuality.

But the worst thing about religion is that it makes it okay to just believe shit because you want to. No religion, no matter how liberal, escapes that.

[…] I think faith/religiosity is an innate part of human psychology. I think human belief in an invisible family in the sky is either product or byproduct of evolution. However, it is, for no apparent reason, NOT an innate part of MY psychology […]

I know that the experience of faith is both real and important for lots of people, and I know it offends them when I discuss faith as a form of self-delusion, but I genuinely don’t understand, plain old don’t understand […] how a person can CHOOSE to believe in something.

They choose to believe it because it makes them feel good. And I think this characterizes MOST people. I think MOST people are able to believe more or less anything they like the sound of. Indeed we’ve made a virtue of it. Just BELIEVE. It’s The Secret, ya know. […]

[…] most of the work I do related to religion involves trying to untangle the knots religion has knit into a person’s sexuality. In my experience, in 90% or more cases religion has caused some form of damage to a person’s sexuality […]

Which is sort of interesting in that it says what I have wondered for many years.  Mind I wouldn’t go so far as Emily, I think — at least not a stridently.  And just because I don’t believe any any form of overarching deity(s) (I just don’t need them, or anyone, to decide my morals for me) doesn’t mean I would deny such a crutch to anyone else.

No, what was interesting for me was that someone who should know, and should be in a position to see, has the courage to say that religion has an adverse effect on sexuality and thus by implication on other taboo areas of health.

But do go and read the original post in full for yourselves.  It’s interesting even if you don’t/can’t agree with it.  And there is a (surprising good natured) discussion in the comments too.

** By religion Emily means ANY and ALL religions.

beliefs, current affairs, freedom of speech, medical, nudism, science, sexuality, thoughts

Nudity, Sex and Sex Education,

2 Comments

I started this post with a dilemma. Do I write it as one long “review” post or split it into several so I can write more in depth about each topic. In the end I decided on the former if only to ensure that the articles I highlight actually get air time and not consigned, by default or laziness, to Bin 101.

In the last week or so there have been a number of items on the intertubes about nudity, sexuality and sex education. Regular readers (What? You mean I have regular readers?) will be aware of my liberal views and my belief that we need to break down society’s taboos in these areas (very much in the Dutch-mode) so my choice of items should come as little surprise.


We Need to Stop Circumcision
Written by Christine Northrup, herself an obstetrician and gynaecologist, this item in the Huffington Post makes a passionate case for not circumcising infant boys, as well as girls. Here are few extracts:

In the weeks ahead, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) are likely to publish a recommendation that all infant boys undergo circumcision. This is a huge mistake. Circumcision is an unnecessary procedure that is painful and can lead to complications, including death. No organization in the world currently recommends this. Why should we routinely remove normal, functioning tissue from the genitals of little boys within days of their birth?

[C]ircumcision was introduced in English-speaking countries in the late 1800s to control or prevent masturbation.

Routine female circumcision, which has been practiced in some cultures, is completely unacceptable … the United Nations has issued a decree against it. Circumcision is a form of sexual abuse whether it’s done to girls or boys.

[M]isleading medical information has begun to surface (yet again) in support of circumcision. This information supports the belief that men with foreskins are more likely to get viral or bacterial infections and pass them on … these are justifications that science has been unable to support. Nor is there any scientific proof that circumcision prevents sexually transmitted diseases.

The United States has high rates of HIV and the highest rate of circumcision in the West. The “experiment” of using circumcision to stem HIV infection [as has been done in Africa] has been running here for decades. It has failed miserably. Why do countries such as New Zealand, where they abandoned infant circumcision 50 years ago, or European countries, where circumcision is rare, have such low rates of HIV?

Circumcision also has profound implications for male sexuality. Studies document that the amount of pleasure a man can receive during intercourse is greater in uncircumcised males. That’s because the male foreskin, like the clitoris, is richly innervated for maximum sexual pleasure. Sexual researchers have determined that men with [their foreskin] are more likely to feel the most pleasure when they make love.

More Sex Education Please, we’re British
This was an article in the Times on 24 February, in which Alice Thomson argued that we (the British) have the highest rate of teenage STDs, abortions and pregnancies in Europe and that the only way this will be reduced is by very open and frank sex education conducted in an adult way. Sniggering behind the bike-sheds, as we British always have done, has gotten us into this mess and won’t get us out of it. Again a telling quote or two:

British children shouldn’t be getting their sex education from Ashley and Cheryl [Cole] but from their parents and teachers. I was once one of those prissy, prudish parents pussyfooting around the question until I was sent to the Netherlands by this newspaper to discuss procreation.

As I walked to De Burght junior school in Amsterdam to talk to the headmaster about his policy, I bumped into eight-year-old Carla carefully balancing a dish. It was a sample of her father’s sperm for “show and tell”. [I bet that had Tunbridge Wells choking on its Shredded Wheat! – Ed.]

In the Netherlands, sex and children aren’t a taboo subject. As pupils play mummies and daddies in the playground they know exactly what they might have been doing last night … a 12-year-old at the senior school showed me how to roll a condom on to a broomstick while her friend asked me if I masturbated.

The British, meanwhile, expect their children to learn about sex and relationships from the playground, internet porn, WAGs and celebrities, and are amazed that we have the highest rate of sexually transmitted diseases and abortions among the under 21s in Europe.

We need to talk about the subject until we can say various anatomical parts without sniggering.

For the first time, I found myself agreeing with Ed Balls [same here – Ed.], the Schools Secretary, on the Today programme yesterday [23 Feb] that sex education should be compulsory in all schools. Of course five-year-olds need to learn about sex, the earlier the better, and from parents as well as teachers.

The Dutch are more religious than the British and still manage to reach consent among Calvinists, Catholics and Muslims that children should be provided with all the facts to make their own informed decisions, not just lectured on morality and the missionary position.

Thoughts on the “hook-up culture,” or what I learned from my high school diary
This appeared on Scarleteen (an excellent site which addresses all sorts of sexuality questions and is aimed at teens and young adults, in a mature and adult way) and elsewhere on 2 March. In it the female writer discusses dating, sex and relationships and how they relate to our current views of feminism and gender roles. A couple of comments particularly struck home with me.

We need to admit as a culture that teens are sexual beings, and that more often than not, sexual maturity has a completely different timeline than emotional maturity. This is, to be sure, skewed by sexism and restrictive gender roles to make sexual coming-of-age worse for girls. But beyond that, maybe discovering what you want sexually and emotionally is just part of growing up – and that’s okay.

Girls deserve to discover themselves sexually at their own pace, to be neither rushed into having sex nor shamed into not having it. They deserve to have their very own “This is bullshit” moments without wearing a chastity belt.

My only comment is something we’re in danger of forgetting: that (despite all the machismo) just the same applies to boys!  If anything it is more important for boys as they first have to slough off that machismo.

Psychology and the Shock of Nudity
This item on the Academic Natuirist weblog addresses the problem of guilt surrounding being discovered naked. For most people the one discovered appears to carry the guilt, which in the view of the writer (and me) is stupid. Again a couple of excepts:

Naturists have a different attitude … You’ve seen me naked? Good! That means I don’t have to get dressed next time you come over …Why should Alice feel bad about seeing Bob naked, if Bob didn’t care at all about it? Alice is not guilty of embarrassing Bob. 
[Equally why should Bob feel guilty at being seen naked if Alice doesn’t care about it? – Ed.]

Getting textiles to not feel guilty about seeing nudity would be a good step for general acceptance [of nudity] … Maybe we’re wrong about how we notify others? The signs … warn “ATTENTION – BEYOND THIS POINT YOU MAY ENCOUNTER NUDE BATHERS” Perhaps the right approach is something like “There’s friendly naked people beyond this sign, and we won’t mind if you stop over and chat with us!”

Naked People – Your Version
Finally a challenge. On 18 February Dairy of a Nudist invited us to take part in a new phase of Sebastian Kempa’s ongoing Naked People project: Naked People Your Version. All you have to do is to submit a pair of identically posed photos of yourself, one clothed the other nude. The idea is, of course, “to help further break down the barrier of clothing which society has imposed to imprison our natural bodies”. I’ve not yet submitted my photos, but I have every intention of doing so in the next week or so. Dare you? – For each one of you who convinces me you’ve submitted your photos (I may ask you for evidence; depends how well I know you!) I’ll make a small donation to charity.  Who’s up for it?

amusements, books, sexuality, thoughts

Will He Care?

1 Comment

Quite by accident while undertaking completely different research I happened upon this on Amazon UK earlier today … the Gentleman’s Willy Care Kit …

 

In case it isn’t obvious (why would it be?) the kit is said to comprise: fluffing brush, mirror, medallion, styling shears and the luxury case.

I can’t conceive why I would possibly want one and I must admit to having a good snigger.  After which I’m left with just one question: Why?

medical, science, sexuality, thoughts

Body Comfort & Sex Education

1 Comment

The eponymous author at Oh My God, That Britni’s Shameless wrote an interesting post a day or so ago about sex education.  What I like about Britni is that she is not only completely open minded but she has the confidence to say exactly what she thinks.  Which doesn’t mean I agree with everything she says; for instance her assertion “It’s just a natural and accepted thing that men are sexual, so they’re going to talk about sex and masturbation and dick size“.  Well, no, sorry, at least in my experience, men don’t; they’re too uptight – but that may be different for the younger generation.

Britni’s post, while being largely aimed at sex education (and just as applicable in the UK as in America), adds support to my long-held belief that we would all be better adjusted mentally, have a lower rate of unwanted pregnancies, and be in better health generally, if we were less repressed, better educated and more comfortable with our bodies.  As an example the US and UK have the two highest rates of unwanted teenage pregnancy in the western world; compare with the laid-back, free-thinking Dutch who have the lowest.  See this Wikipedia article (though some of the date here is quite old) and the diagram in this article from the Independent; see also, inter alia, here, here and here.

If we are to achieve this change of mindset we have to do two things: (a) restructure the brains of our revered leaders (political and religious) giving them a complete paradigm shift in their thinking on all things sexual, and then (b) investing in much better, more open and more caring sex & health education, vide the Dutch.  Along the way this, of course, will mean a change in attitudes towards nudity.

But of course the status quo is self-fulfilling and comfortable; change is uncomfortable and no-one much likes being outside their comfort zone.  Our leaders are repressed, so the modus operandi follows this, making the (unthinking) populous repressed, and they become or elect our leaders, and so ad infinitum.  I don’t know how we break the cycle.  All people like me can do is to keep expressing our views in the hope that the message does eventually seep into the cracks in a few brains and start that paradigm shift.  So I’m not putting any money on this change happening any time soon, but hope springs eternal.