Figleaf's Real Adult Sex

Daniel of Casual Kitchen knocks it out of the park on another hidden-in-plain-sight issue that eventually affects almost all long-term relationships, especially in-college, fresh out of college, or instead of college relationships: domestic budgets.

Below is a recipe list, menu list and itemized grocery list you can use to feed two people a wide range of simple, healthy dinners for fifteen days. It can easily be scaled up for larger families, or used as a template for your own collection of favorite, low-cost recipes. And this is no hypothetical menu that looks good on paper but fails miserably in practice. I actually used this exact menu, made these exact food purchases and cooked these exact recipes during an actual fifteen day period a couple of months ago. This was a real 15-day trial carried out in real life.

It's deceivingly easy to assume that eating involves unavoidable tradeoffs: Healthy food has to be expensive. Cooking at home means spending hours slaving away in the kitchen. There's not enough time or money to eat well at home.

...

Recipe List:

• Garden Gumbo- 1.5 batches
• Black Beans and Rice - double batch
• Viennese Potato Soup - double batch
• Fresh Carrot and Cabbage Curry - double batch
• Chicken Mole
• Easy Lentil Soup with Chicken

Source: Casual Kitchen

I've made quickly made and my family has thoroughly enjoyed all of those dishes, all taken from Daniel's list of Best Laughably Cheap Recipes. Most could become comfort foods. As well as being laughably cheap and remarkably good they're all ridiculously easy to make too. The best part of Daniel's post is the title: "Two People, Fifteen Days, Thirty Meals. Thirty-Five Bucks!" The best part because he was being cautiously conservative about the price -- he says hypothetically, if you exclude the ingredients left over from his shopping list, it could have cost as much as nine dollars cheaper!

When we think of the politics of sex, gender, and relationships we usually think about things like trust, attraction, maturity, commitment and/or the lack thereof, opportunity, and maybe whether or not to risk contact with each other's bodily fluids. All of which is fine, of course, and perfectly true. But especially when we're young, and possibly, in today's political and economic climate, even when we're older, we overlook the ability to provide our partners, and to impress them, with a variety of healthy, home-cooked, low-cost meals at our peril.

Like Daniel I don't particularly have to feed my family dollar-a-serving meals. But I've put many of his recipes in heavy rotation for my family anyway because... they're delicious! His Pasta Puttanesca, Pasta with Tuna, Olives and Roasted Red Peppers, Collards with Rice and Kielbasa, and Groundnut Stew are serious comfort-food-quality crowd pleasers. Some of them, like his Chicken Mole recipe, are suitable for semi-fancy potlucks if served with rice. Just don't admit how little they cost to make because no one will believe you.

Update: I can't believe I forgot to mention that none of these dishes are much more difficult to master than the a) mac and cheese, b) fried potatoes, and c) rice boiled in bullion cubes that were all I knew how to cook when I first left home. And without focusing too much on traditional gender disparities and social expectations, young men could easily master them today. And while I don't know if you could win friends and influence people with them you'd definitely impress friends and have a little left over each week to entertain them. Just sayin'

Photo by Flickr user fabulousfabs. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Jeffrey Israel reminds us yet again of the covert body-hair fashion imperative hiding in plain sight.

Every morning I wake up with resentment about the fact that I have to shave my damn face. The ideas that grew gnarled and twisted in my mind by the end of the previous day have loosened over night. My mind is fresh and agile and I’m already working on new material silently in the shower. I’m ready to burst through the plastic shower curtain. I’ll do a couple of quick swipes with a towel to dry off, throw on a random pick of clothes, grab my coffee, which was prepared with a timer to be ready and waiting the night before, some cereal, and run over to my computer to pound out a few pages of my book proposal, or conference paper, or whatever. 

But noooooooooo. Stop everything. I have to spend the next 8 to 10 minutes lathering up, artfully dodging moles, carving into under-nose crevices, turning the water on and off to rinse the razor. It’s torture. And I resent it. 

What if we could spare future generations this grievous time suck? Surely facial hair is no longer necessary for human survival (if it ever was). No future person would be worse off for not being able to grow facial hair, right? Wouldn’t we be doing future people a favor? Wouldn’t we take a huge leap forward in human evolution if we genetically engineered all forthcoming infants to grow no facial hair and to produce descendents who would forevermore likewise be incapable of such growth? 

Source: Big Think

Rather than spend more time mentioning how weird it is that we all distinguish "body" hair removal from "facial" hair removal, I'm just going to go ahead and restate, and in doing so re-frame, Israel's question:

If we could genetically eradicate facial body ancillary hair, should we?

Would we?

Would you?

It's a trickier question than you think. At some point in the past our ancestors had considerably more body hair. Were they better off? Were they more attractive? Was it a boon, a bust, or no difference? If they could have gotten their hands on five-blade razors and hot water would they have shaved their foreheads, eyelids, and noses? Would those who did have been admired as looking tidy? Decried for looking "prepubescent?" Sought out for being daring and sexy? Turned to for seeming self-disciplined and clean cut?

On balance I think I probably would change my facial hair. Maybe not to eliminate it altogether. But maybe to change it enough to make it possible to wax it the way we can wax all the rest of our body hair.

But really? I think if we were to spend any time genetically modifying ourselves for fashionable rather than medical reasons I think I'd rather we modified ourselves to not really care one way or the other.

Laura Clawson says

A Human Rights Watch report based on interviews with dozens of farmworkers as well as many attorneys, service providers, law enforcement officials and others involved in the agriculture industry details the problems these women face. The problem is widespread:

A 2010 survey of 150 farmworker women in California’s Central Valley found that 80 percent had experienced some form of sexual harassment, while a report by the Southern Poverty Law Center found that a majority of their 150 interviewees had also experienced sexual harassment.

Because assailants are often supervisors, women who resist sexual harassment or assault are often fired in retaliation, sometimes along with their entire families or with coworkers who try to stand up for them

Source: Daily Kos

It's just so... conceited to claim that people trafficking into commercial sex is the only conceivable thing we should be worrying our pretty little heads about. My only quibble would be that the report makes it sound as though only women in precarious, smuggled, or trafficked agricultural work are subject to sexual harassment and sexual coercion, but that's just a quibble: it matters more that anyone at all is acknowledging that "non-sex" smuggled, trafficked, and otherwise poorly-documented workers are at risk. Especially since credible reports suggest that they (along with trafficked manufacturing, domestic, and hospitality workers) make up close to 90% of humans trafficked worldwide.

Frequently Freakonomics-addled economics professor Alex Tabarrok relays the following from Louis Theroux in The Guardian

...it is difficult to see how a business selling hardcore movies and even internet clips is sustainable when most people simply don’t want to pay if they don’t have to. To many people, when it comes to porn, not paying for content seems the more moral thing to do.

Source: The Guardian

To which I can only say I'm winning. That's a link to what I think was my first assertion that as both the stigma for acknowledging one's sexual activities and the economic barriers to entry drop, the number of people who find it exciting to upload "porn" made with partners who similarly enjoy exhibitionism is going to increase. And as it increases it's going to eclipse industrial porn.

Or, as I'd put it today, I would add that, especially now that both stigma and capital barriers to entry are so low, to many other people when it comes to porn not charging for the content they and their sex partners produce and upload also seems like the more moral thing to do.

Because the best thing about zero-marginal-cost porn is there’s also approximately zero marginal incentive for the coercion, exploitation, and unsafe working conditions which have traditionally been the biggest objections to porn, at least on the progressive side of anti-porn debates.

Photo by Flickr user Twiggles. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Atheism evangelist Adam Lee says it's about time people started addressing the sometimes outright predatory sexism that afflicts his community. Good for him.  And great job snarking the guys (and it's mostly guys) who think if they're being oppressed if they can't drunkenly corner women skeptics in elevators. (Emphasis mine.)

The atheist community is abuzz over a discussion at last month's Women in Secularism conference, in which it inadvertently emerged that there are prominent speakers who have a reputation for predatory behavior and whom atheist women informally warn each other to avoid. This revelation (as well as a few recent high-profile examples of unacceptable behavior) is leading to the institution of anti-harassment policies at many of the major annual conventions, something I'm very happy about.

Still, from the usual quarters, we're hearing the absurd fear that these policies are "Talibanesque" (because the Taliban are well-known for their strong anti-sexual-harassment stance) and will suppress well-intentioned and harmless social interaction. Some people are even threatening not to go to conventions that have them, saying that they create too much "drama", or that they're "dividing the movement" (and harassment doesn't?).

I want to stress that if I thought for even a moment that anti-harassment policies would have this effect, I'd be strongly against them. I'm all in favor of everyone having a good time at atheist conventions. I'm all in favor of people getting to meet and greet famous atheists, to network, and to make friends. And I'm all in favor of flirting, dating and sex being options for people at conventions, if that's what they're there for. These policies aren't intended to stifle these activities, nor will they. The whole point is that they make these events more enjoyable for everyone, by ruling out only those behaviors that make others feel demeaned or afraid for their safety.

Source: Big Think Proxy

I'm personally not a big fan of organized atheism for the same reason I'm skeptical of organized religion.  And so maybe I'm not the best person to go to for advice for recruitment and retention.  But if I was I'd probably point out that if you really want the whole population to become unbelievers you could start by not alienating half the population.

Photo by Flickr user Dru Bloomfield. Used under a Creative Commons license.

So over at Em & Lo's site a woman wrote for advice saying

Dear Em & Lo,

I’m an 18-year-old girl/woman and I want to be more sexually active, but every time I have sex with my boyfriend I orgasm super quickly (like in less than 5 minutes) and it feels weird to keep going. What should I do? I really want to keep up with my boyfriend but he says he could go for hours but I can only last for minutes.

– Early Bird

She said it here

First of all, if by “sex” Early Bird means “intercourse” then I don’t think five minutes before she has an orgasm is all that short a time. Taking admittedly great liberties with averages, average hetero intercourse lasts a little more than five minutes, and 25% of women say they always have (some kind of) orgasms from intercourse (and more say they usually or often do.) If Early Bird's partner could only go two minutes instead of hours then ta-da, suddenly she'd suddenly be “frigid!”

That said…

I think the feeling of weirdness or discomfort with continued sex after orgasm is more common than a lot of women let on. Although it’s commonly considered a “male” thing, plenty of women are “one and done” when it comes to orgasms. And of those I’d say while about half are ready to continue if their partner wants to, quite a few others are ready shift gears and start talking about their day, to go to sleep, to start thinking about breakfast, and so on.

And, again while it’s usually called a “male” attribute, a subset of those women also come both easily and early. Which, if their partners are still in the mood, can leave them feeling a little hung out to try. Even though that hung-out-to-dry feeling is typically considered a “female” attribute.

Call me a rebel here but I think it’s even less likely that women this happens to are going to disclose being “premature ejaculators” than men are. First because it’s a little embarrassing. Second because a) “everybody knows” orgasms are hard for women, b) “everybody knows” women can always have another orgasm (in contradiction to item #1), and c) “everybody knows” sex for women is about “feeling close” rather than horny so continuing sex after orgasm without feeling weird is supposed to be perfectly “natural.”

This is why I’m so happy Early Bird has piped up about her experience. She’s not alone! It can be a problem! It doesn’t feel lucky, either for her or her partners, or for women like her or their partners.

The good news is that while the underlying mechanisms are probably a little different, some of the techniques men are taught to deal with premature orgasms might work for you. And no, I don’t mean cliches like thinking of baseball statistics or imagining out-of-shape in-laws naked. I mean the real things like communication, acknowledgement, pacing, practicing “edging” by yourself and then later with a partner, and (radical though it might sound) doing “foreplay” to get him up to speed.

Which leads me to return to my first thought: how many more women would find themselves in Early Bird’s shoes if more men learned how to last more than 3-5 minutes? I say this not to knock men (at all) but to say it’s funny how we assume that women’s orgasms are “hard” just because they don’t tend happen as quickly as their male partners. I mean, consider if Early Bird’s partner was more quick on the trigger she might still think she had “problems” reaching orgasm during sex!

This is not an accusation.  This is not an imprecation.  This is not a blinding insight. This may be obvious to everyone else on the planet.  This is not an attempt at moral, spiritual, gender, cultural equivalence.  I don't even think it's profound.  This is a personal insight strong enough to prompt me out of my blogging somnolence.

In interpersonal, cultural, and especially geographic conflicts imposed sex and withheld food are used as both strategic and tactical weapons.  Typically against civilians.  By aggressors and too often even by defenders!

It's not always food.  It's not always sex.  But it's both often enough to say no, seriously, food and sex ought to be off limits.

Call this post repeating the obvious for no reason other than it probably can't be said enough.

Speaking of overzealous male sex researchers, Petra Boynton the latest g-spot un-debunker, Adam Ostrzenski, who says he's definitely, positively found what he's calling the "g-spot" organ while dissecting the anterior vaginal wall of one particular cadaver of an 83-year-old woman, has a pretty glaring conflict of interest.

[T]he author claims he has no conflict of interest. Which is concerning given he runs a Cosmetic Gynaecology practice this is not in itself sinister but it does have a bearing on why he may have an interest in proving the presence of a g-spot and should have been declared in both the press release and the paper. It is remiss of the journal and publisher not to ensure this was done.

Alongside the numerous cosmetic genital procedures he offers, Dr Ostrzenski trains practitioners in procedures including ‘g-spot fat augmentation’ and ‘g-spot surgical augmentation’.

This sounds very much like something that could well be considered a conflict of interest and should have been declared as such in the paper.

Source: Dr. Petra Boynton

On the one hand, maybe you can say that a guy who tries to make a living in "g-spot fat augmentation" would have a vested interest in locating the actual g-spot in order to best, well, augment it. On the other hand, though, if the guy's got a vested interest he be a little over invested in finding something he can claim his procedure "augments." Either way, though, it's unusual for good researchers to claim no commercial interest when they plainly have one.

Via Ed Yong

Photo by Flickr user avlxyz. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Speaking of (mostly-male) researcher's obsessive fixation on "female sexuality" and (almost complete) neglect of men's sexuality, Dr. Petra Boynton brings it home with the following thought experiment. She's talking about yet another case of "does she or doesn't she" research on, what else, whether women have "g-spots."

[C]onsider how this scenario would look if it were penises under the microscope. While there are undoubtedly distressing issues facing men around penis size and stamina the stereotype for men is they all experience pleasure from their dicks. If you talk to men you discover some get intense pleasure from testicle stimulation and are unable to orgasm without this. Some hate their balls touched. Some get a lot of pleasure if attention is paid to the shaft of the penis. Some find direct stimulation to the glans uncomfortable. Others experience more pleasure from anal stimulation.

Yet we do not suggest because men can and do experience pleasure from different areas in their genitals that there are specific spots that guarantee male orgasm or that men are somehow deficient if they do not experience say, a left testicle orgasm. We don’t scan, survey, or perform autopsies on penises to establish the most sensitive parts. Nor do we have self help books, courses or sex toys designed to coach men into experiencing orgasm through stimulation to specific areas of their genitals.

Indeed suggesting this usually results in people laughing. Why would we do this? But we do seem to feel the need to continue to make women’s bodies and sexual responses seem complex and difficult. Actually that’s not quite true. One journal and the media appear preoccupied with this. Most people are not that bothered and certainly most sex researchers are not.

Source: Petra Boynton

First of all, hey, left-testicular orgasms! WTF? Where can I get one of those!?!?!? Why aren't there tons of books and DETAILS magazine articles telling me, and my partner(s) how to find this elusive "L-T spot?" Oh, right.

Hey, is it time to get out the bogus Two Rules of Desire of the dominant women-as-the "no-sex" class paradigm yet? Thanks to Rule #1 (it is simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for a woman to express sexual desire) "female" sexuality is a big, giant mystery. A medical problem! Heck, did I say medical? It's an out-and-out engineering problem! Meanwhile, thanks to Rule #2 (it is simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for a man to be sexually desired) there... pretty much isn't a field anyone calls "male sexuality."

It goes without saying that neither women nor men benefit from what amounts to the academic equivalents of trying to get a peek into the girl's lockerroom.

Now. Does that mean there's anything particularly wrong with turning an interest in the sexual details of the kind of people you have an orientation for into a topic for research? Not specifically. Unless for some reason the vast, vast, vast majority of researchers are of one sex and one orientation.

Similarly is should we be particularly put out that guys like this Adam Ostrzenski would prefer to feel more comfortable, say, dissecting dead 83-year-old women to trying to help, say, live 21-year-old men have left-testicle orgasms? Eh. It might be a little phobic but you can't say there's not a heck of a lot of social pressure on straight men not to spend a lot of time thinking about other men's penises.

So!

Not to sound petty or self-interested but this seems like as good a reason as any to encourage more women to become academics in STEM fields. As commenter PattyCake put it in my last post "Because who wants to think about guys jacking off? (Me!)"

Photo by Flickr user marsmet462. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Sweet mother of pearl is there ever a mind-bending difference in the number of research papers on "female arousal" compared to similar studies of men.

This despite the fact that it sure looks like sex researchers (particularly principle investigators) are overwhelmingly male. And would have plenty of research material at... er... hand.

You'd think, especially for no-brainer (heh) PET-scan research like this one, called High-intensity Erotic Visual Stimuli De-activate the Primary Visual Cortex in Women, someone would bother to try the same experiment on men to see whether there were differences or similarities.

Or, if they did do use such experimental "controls" you'd think they'd mention it in the abstract. Not least because you'd think someone would be interested in one of two obvious outcomes

• Research showed that women's brains categorically process "high-intensity erotic visual stimuli" differently than do men's, or
• Research showed that women's and men's brains process such stimuli similarly.

Either way you'd think news about the latter two would be more interesting. But... probably because it would involve learning something about male sexuality... either nobody bothered mentioning it or, more likely, nobody's even bothered to try.

It's not that nobody's interested.  But most of the time it's not very integrated -- people generally seem to study a) female arousal, b) female arousal, c) female arousal, d) male arousal, e) female arousal, f) gay male arousal, g) female arousal, etc.  But you only occasionally see the same experiements conducted on both men and women. 

I still think the problem is that since everybody already "knows" everything you could possibly know about male sexuality (e.g. 90% of men masturbate and the other 10% are liars) there's no real reason to look... to see what if any of what we "know" is true.