Tue, 2005-05-31 17:01

This is about Laura from Laura the Tooth again. This time she talks intelligently about why she wouldn’t appear in the kind of porn videos that are generally available to her.

i watch porn from time to time, and i really admire a few performers like jenna jameson and asia carerra. but while i am willing to consider life as a sugar baby (just a more legitimized form of expensive hooking where the rich “boyfriend” showers hot young thing with money and gifts, where both parties know full well that there would be no pussy privileges without the financial incentives), i could never see myself doing porn for the following reasons:

Read her whole post here.

It boils down to a couple of very good reasons: she breaks out when semen gets on her face, she’s not athletic enough to withstand the “piledriver” and “reverse piledriver” positions, and she’s not very enthused about rectal tears and other injuries common to contemporary mainstream porn models.

First of all, good for her for not wanting to do porn, at least two-person mainstream video/dvd porn. She perfectly articulates what seems to be wrong with all the stuff I’ve seen. (Don’t get me wrong, I’m perfectly comfortable with some porn, and I can certainly conceptualize other porn scenarios I’d really enjoy. I just don’t care for the whole weird ugly guy vs. high-heels-in-bed pop-tart sex-as-aerobics thing that comes out of the southern California porn industry.)

But second of all (since, by my own admission, I’ve been out of the porn-video loop for years) I wonder what makes her think that she’d have to do double anal and/or these piledriver things (which, having just Googled them, sounds about as interesting as unjamming a clogged disposal)?

I know she’s in southern California, and that seems to be where 99% of mainstream porn comes from, but since they appear to produce thousands of videos a year somebody’s got to be doing alternative stuff. (Yikes, or maybe not. I know Dacia, Jane, and others do more interesting stuff but then they’re not doing it in Laura’s neck of the woods.)

Also, while we’re at it (and maybe I’m just to used to the indie rock concept) it seems like her blog is fairly well followed so if it were me (it’s not) and if she were really interested (she’s probably not) she could probably produce her own niche porn, dupe her own DVDs, and hawk them on her website.

Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not, not, not suggesting she do this. It’s just a way of wondering out loud why porn actresses (and actors?) keep submitting to the same old thing. Also I wonder if it’s not more productive to continue developing ideas about what she would do instead of griping (as I do) about what she wouldn’t. :-)

Who knows? The internet’s a big place. Somebody somewhere might take the hint. (Think of it as putting the million-monkeys-at-a-million-typewriters effect to good use.)

—-

Meanwhile, if people are looking for new ideas for posts (which happens to almost everybody sooner or later) you could always help brainstorm the sort of porn you’d be willing to appear in (in an ideal, no in-laws, no incensed boss, no STDs and social opprobrium world of course.)

Bonus. If you post something like that, leave a comment here and I’ll update this post with a link to yours.

Update: People who’ve responded

Laura Tooth: is it possible for smut to be fair and feminist?

Meanwhile Tony Comstock appears to have gone way beyond theorizing! :-)

Mon, 2005-05-30 23:09

Noticing someone’s breasts moving under her suit jacket as she runs across the street. Noticing she’s watch them too with a surprised inward smile. (24 words)

Mon, 2005-05-30 22:39

On one of the discussion groups I read heavily before I started this blog one of the topics was “What Gets You Horney? (In 25 Words or Less.)”

It seemed like a tough question. Is it (1) what gets you horny to start with? Or (2) what gets you more horny when you’re already in the mood? Or (3) what can take you over the top when you’re nearly there?

First case:
While driving her home the sitter asks out of the blue if it’s wrong for a high-school senior to have a crush on someone older. (25 words)

Second case:
You’re kissing your partner’s shoulders and breasts and out of the blue she asks if you’d ever want to try a threeway with the sitter. (25 words)

Third case:
You’re making passionate love with your partner and out of the blue you feel first the sitter’s lips, and then her breasts on your back. (25 words)

Without context it’s hard to answer in 25 words or less and of course the great thing about sex is there are so many contexts — many of which do not involve the sitter :-)

Actually the 25 words or less stricture is kind of cool. It’s easier than haiku and a lot more fun. Try it.

Update:
By the way, I can imagine what it would be like to be invited to have a threeway with, or be joined in a threeway with my partner and a high-school senior (or college freshman, I’m not prejudiced :-)). It would certainly make me horny, but since it’s never happened can only imagine it.

Of course imagining it makes me horny. Oops, that’s only seven words! :-)

Even more important update:
In comments DTG of Pussy Talk reminded me that most babysitters are underage. Ewww! (I discuss my philosophical and moral aversion to sex with the underaged here.)

Mon, 2005-05-30 09:11

Homo faber: “Homo Faber, from Latin, can be translated as man who controls his environment through his abilities and tools, or tool-worker and man – maker of things.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I’d rather carry a horse than ride it — Gimli
Anything you can do I can do better — Annie Oakley

—————————-

Ditto, VS, I feel the same only in reverse. I think it’s a common feeling. I really can’t say that two men are any more elementally sexual than any other combination, but the idea of two [insert your preference here] lovers to play with, watch, and choose from seems like a perfectly reasonable fantasy for anyone. It’s been cliché for years that straight men would like to see or be with two or more women, and the assumption has always been that it’s some kind of harem-building and/or innate promiscuous male thing. It’s also fairly common these days for people to claim that women are just more naturally bisexual so they’re somehow “happier” or more willing than men to have sex with each other.

I’m not so sure it’s that simple. I think instead that as women are beginning to own and enjoy their own pornography they’re as naturally attracted to two men together as men are to women. And I think the reason has as much to do with a) being able to project themselves into either role and b) not being naturally “more” bisexual and thus able to enjoy either role in heterosexual porn. If women (or men) don’t turn you on, but you like watching people have sex, then it makes sense that you’d rather watch two men (or women) because then you don’t have to filter anything out.

I suspect that over time, as heterosexual men become more exposed to male porn (perhaps watching it because it makes their partners hot) a lot of the stigma will evaporate. A gay friend who shares your enthusiasm for fellatio says he can’t remember the last time a nominally straight guy under age 25 turned him down when he offered to eat them. If it gets out that doing it, or a willingness to, excites their partners I’m guessing as many men will be inclined to at least play with other men as women are to play with other women. (That doesn’t mean everybody will, of course, but the tendency will probably increase.) So my guess is that well within a generation it’ll be pretty easy for you to fulfill your fantasy. (I’m guessing it might already be easier than you think.)

Laura the Tooth has proposed that she’ll let someone have anal sex with her if and only if she can then have anal sex with him with a strap-on. (A reciprocal construction appeals to me: I’d be willing to let a partner apply a strap-on to me anywhere she’d allow me to apply my cock to her, and either way we’d each probably be more considerate with the other knowing what was coming next.) Similarly the “service top” in me says I could conceivably do something with another man, though it would have to be if and only if it were a prelude to sex with my female partner. In other words I could imagine being the middle of an MMF sandwich but I can’t imagine having another M between me and an F — but if and only if she was equally to play a similar role in a FFM three-way with me.

Question: If a heterosexual guy made that proposition to you, for an MMF three-way, would you as a heterosexual woman be able to reciprocate with a FFM for him? I’m not trying to put you on the “talk is cheap” spot — it’s perfectly fine for you to say no. (As a very heterosexual male it would be — in fact was — very difficult for me to say yes to someone else.) But it’s not only a fair question, it’s also good opportunity for self reflection. (It was for me — I hadn’t considered it till you brought it up in this post, so thanks.)

———————————

virgin-slut said…

Figleaf,
RE: “If a heterosexual guy made that proposition to you, for an MMF three-way, would you as a heterosexual woman be able to reciprocate with a FFM for him?”

It all depends on who is asking and how much I like him ;) so yes, I’d do it for the right person.

Some guys want MFF for the FF part, and I’m just not into the FF thing, so if the guy wants me to get it on with the other girl, I’d have to do a whole lot of acting to make it convincing. Having said that, I’ve always wondered what it would be like to have a girl eat me out, so maybe that would be the time to find out.
Other guys want to be worshipped my 2 girls, and I’d have to be madly in love with the guy for this version of MFF because this version would be all about pleasing him.

Ideally, I would want a guy who doesn’t bargain; although, I do believe in equality, so anything I want, he can want too. But what turns me on is someone who wants to experience the MM part, and is turned on by that factor. It would have to be someone who enjoys receiving anal sex. I don’t want a guy who is not into it to do it to please me.

As for what your gay friend said: I suspect it is true. Most guys won’t turn down a bj (though fucking is a different issue). Also, I’m sure a lot of guys (of my generation) are curious enough to try a same sex encounter, to find out how a guy blowing them is different to a girl doing it. But would a straight guy be willing to get a bj from a guy in front of a girl, in other words, not behind closed doors? And how many would be willing to try more than a (received) blow job?

And I totally agree with you that porn is changing the shape of “regular” sex.
10:45

———————————

figleaf said…

“But what turns me on is someone who wants to experience the MM part, and is turned on by that factor. It would have to be someone who enjoys receiving anal sex. I don’t want a guy who is not into it to do it to please me.”

Aye, there’s the rub (pun intended) — what other reason would a heterosexual partner have unless it were to please you? :-) For what it’s worth, as a curious, egalitarian, and passionately straight man I’d far rather perform fellatio or receive anal sex because then I’d have a better understanding of your heterosexual experience.

Conversely (and perhaps, perversely considering popular conceptions) the common argument for trying bisexuality is that a man’s mouth or anus doesn’t feel any different than a woman’s. And this is supposed to be pursuasive how? If it doesn’t feel any different and you prefer women then why on earth would you want to try it with a man?

(By the way, I admit I’m clearly not responding well to your fantasy/ambition and it’s probably not polite to hijack your post with my own ruminations. I am going to post further about this on my own blog. Thanks again for the wonderful inspiration, VS.)

——————————-

virgin-slut said…

Figleaf,
re: “what other reason would a heterosexual partner have unless it were to please you?”

The reasons you’ve given are good enough … curiosity, adventure, etc.

As for: “the common argument for trying bisexuality is that a man’s mouth or anus doesn’t feel any different than a woman’s.”

I wouldn’t know, but it doesn’t really matter because it will NOT feel the same, unless it is direct penis to orifice contact, and no touching of other parts. But won’t there be some touching? Will a man’s pubic area feel the same as a woman’s? Won’t his stubble affect the overall feel of the bj?
I think whoever came up with this argument is missing the point, which is that you want to experience something different. Even if the orifices feel the same, you still have to consider the other senses, especially vision.

There is no way a man can have sex with another man and not know it.

———————

Virgin-slut said…

The guy in the middle of the MMF is on the receiving end of the other male’s advances, so he is the one taking on the “femaleâ€? role of being violated. If guys are so opposed to being fucked, why would they want to be in this position? I have two theories to explain this:
A. Contrary to what most guys say, they actually do fantasise about being on the receiving end of penetration.
They like the idea of receiving anal stimulation.
They are probably more submissive than they are willing to admit.

B. Straight guys are so attached to the belief that a female must be penetrated during sex that they are willing to forgo the stigma attached to being penetrated by another man, if it means that they will get the woman.
The woman brings a sense of security to this manhood.
Which theory is more accurate? Hang-up A, or Hang-up B?

—————————————————-

I guess it depends on how you define hangup. If you mean “what a heterosexual man is willing to do with his partner” then for me it’s hangup B.

I don’t agree with the assertion that a hole is a hole is a hole. Otherwise a child, or an animal, an assault victim, or a dead person would be just as good gratification-wise as (in terms of my preferences) a consenting adult woman.

I’d also challenge the assertion that penis-receiving sex is inherently passive or non-masculine. I could be totally wrong about this but I don’t imagine most gay men see it that way.

(Aside: I remember reading an anecdote in an early men’s-theory book about a matador in Spain who, after some crowning achievement in the bullring had friends over for dinner. After dinner, when he collected the dishes and began washing them one of his guest asked if he didn’t think that was a womanly thing to do. The matador flew into a rage and said “everything I do is masculine!” It’s a good point. I’ve worried about a lot of things since, but never about being feminine. Turns out men who’ve figured that out can be gentle, men can knit and cook and change babies, and “even” buy tampons and change diapers and still fuck the dickens out of their partners. Men who haven’t figured that out evidently can’t.)

Years ago, before I’d really thought about it, I realized my romantic assertions that I’d swim through sharks or crawl through burning sands for a partner was empty because I wouldn’t join a threeway involving a bisexual man even though I desired the woman so much my teeth ached.

Now I’d put receiving a cock somewhere between desert crawling and shark swimming. I’d do it, and I’d do a damn good, active job, but for the reasons I explained in comments to your previous post: to better understand what she does for me, to help excite her, and so that ultimately we could have sex together. Otherwise why get out of bed in the morning (or do I mean into bed?)

As for where I prefer to receive my own gratification, that’s not so much a choice as an orientation. Women turn me on and men aren’t very interesting. If there are three of us in a room and the other guy can recieve his pleasure wherever he prefers that’s actually pretty cool — for every Jack there’s a Jill or another Jack — but, VS, I’d only have eyes for her. As heterosexual hang-ups go I could do a lot worse than be hung up on my partner.

On second thought, I suppose my real hang-up would be my inability to regard another guy as a legitimate sex partner. I’ve always rejected that kind of objectification, and to that extent it really doesn’t matter if he’s the active or passive party. If I couldn’t acknowledge him as a partner I shouldn’t have sex with him, and I certainly shouldn’t use him for my own gratification.

Bummer, I’m a libertine prude. Back to the drawing board.

—-

Going back to the active/passive role thing, if fellatio is supposed to be passive then I’m going to have to find another word for the very active things my partners do to me with their mouths, hands, and wilful intentions.

—-

This a wonderfully complicated issue clouded by any number of cultural assumptions. It’s also, evidently, a fairly new one. I’m very happy you’ve brought it up, I think you’re great for continuing to follow up on it, and I really appreciate the opportunity to participate. Thanks!

———————————-

virgin-slut said…

Figleaf,
I’m really not sure about this active/passive idea. In my opinion, no consensual sexual act can be passive. I reject the notion that masculine is active and feminine is passive; that theory is too Aristotelian, and we’ve come a long way. However, in general, one assumes that the role of the male is to penetrate, so the person on the receiving end of his cock would be assuming the role of the female … you bring up a really good point here … I wonder how this theory holds in gay sex.
Also, I’m curious by what you mean when you say, “I suppose my real hang-up would be my inability to regard another guy as a legitimate sex partner. I’ve always rejected that kind of objectificationâ€?. What kind of objectification would that be? For some reason when I read that I understood it to mean that you cannot objectify a guy, but you objectify women you have sex with? I could be totally wrong here.
16:26

————————————-

figleaf said…

“What kind of objectification would that be? For some reason when I read that I understood it to mean that you cannot objectify a guy, but you objectify women you have sex with? I could be totally wrong here.”

Glad you asked that question, I’d hate to leave it unspoken. In the scenario I have in mind, based on one of your original posts on this topic, is that the female partner would like to be in an MMF three-way because she’s interested in the MM component. I projected myself into that scenario, based on an invitation I declined many years ago, where I was invited to join a couple because she wanted me to have sex with him as well as her. I was really only interested in her, and considered “putting up” with him so that she and I could have sex again. (The first, and turns out only, time we had sex was wonderful!)

Anyway, I came to your question in terms of a strongly heterosexual male trying to accomodate a partner who wished me to enhance her enjoyment by playing some kind of role with another man. Now we finally get to the objectification part. If I’m not relating to the other guy as an equal sex partner in such circumstances, but only as a vehicle for my preferred partner’s enjoyment, then I’m objectifying him in the literal sense of viewing him as a “marital aid” in the quaint parlance of an earlier day. I balked in my earlier comment precisely because I don’t want to objectify anyone, male or female. (For instance I prefer to say “I want to make love with you” rather than “I want to make love to you.”) Consequently, if I can’t interact to a male partner to the same degree I’d relate to a partner who’s a woman, then I don’t feel I should interact with him at all.

It’s been a long time, as I mentioned earlier, since my invitation to an MMF, but I recall her saying he’d be satisfied if he could just suck me. Your observation elsewhere that that shouldn’t be a problem made me realize that in fact that was the problem. For whatever reason, my experience of heterosexuality is such that I’m not interested in receiving pleasure from a man. What surprised me when I first replied, is that my experience of heterosexuality would appear to make me indifferent to, and therefore able to accept, his receiving pleasure from me.

Closet bisexual men have a remarkable ability to rationalize their activities as “really a heterosexual who’s slumming.” Recognizing that I’m engaging in similar constructions I’ll only observe that while I would agree to sexual behavior with a man in a three-way with a woman, I can’t imagine agreeing to engage in exactly the same behavior with only another man. (Which loops back to the problem that I’d be doing it for her rather than him, which means I’d be objectifying him, which means I probably wouldn’t.)

I ought to mention that I’m not uncomfortable with the idea of sex with men. I’m aware that nowhere in the scenario I’ve visited have I addressed the possibility that either sucking him or being anally penetrated by him would arouse me sexually. I don’t think it would, but if it did then cool, I’d learn something new about myself and I could say I was bisexual after all. I gotta tell you, though, that even then I expect the first thing I’d want to do is talk to my partner about what would then be our now-common experiences.

I hope that makes sense.

...

Oh, and for the record I have no problem with having her strap-on anywhere in me if she’ll have my cock in the same places. I don’t mind the idea of penetration, I’m just not interested in men.

...

And finally, I can’t speak for all gay men, but my closest gay friends would probably balk at calling receiving a cock as taking the feminine role. They’re pretty male oriented and I think I remember one of them just calling it “man on the bottom.” Others may see it differently but I’m not sure.

Sun, 2005-05-29 12:18

The Girl of The girl with a one-track mind has tagged me with a lovely variation on the recent book-meme project.

Like her I’m not a huge joiner of things like that (I rarely complete online surveys either) but I’ll try rising to the challenge. In the spirit of mutations I’m going to answer approximately, and introduce possible redundancies by tagging people who may have been tagged before. No one should feel obliged to respond though of course they’re welcome to either by answering these or making up their own. Kudos to TG for loosening the bustle a bit (not that tight bustles are a bad thing.)

Last five songs:

Tough question since I’m more of a roll-your own music listener. Instead I’ll tell you the last five instruments I’ve played my own songs on: guitar, banjo, mandolin, pedal-steel, or (recently) piano.

• Joanie Mitchell’s Circle Game: a lovely modulating chord progression that’s complex enough to listen to but simple enough to learn by ear on these new piano thingies I’ve started trying to play.
• Jay Ungar’s Ashokan Farewell: a hauntingly beautiful that’s only 20 years old but sounds a thousand. The melody makes me ache, the chords offer reassurance and resignation. Acoustic guitar.
• Over the Rainbow: Another tune with wistful voicings and lush transitions that I’d always wanted to learn to play. I’ve got it pretty nailed on guitar, now I’m moving to other instruments. (Also trying to work out If I Only Had a Brain — way over my head on piano but my theme song.)
• Lennon & McCartney’s In My Life in open strings for the banjo, replacing the hokey harpsichord break with the chorus of an old sea chantey about finding a lost friend. I hope it’ll be ready in time for a memorial service for a friend.
• The second (cantable) part of Beethoven’s Patetique on Dobro in standard (open G) tuning.
• Various rock anthems on a six-string ukulele (Stairway to Heaven at quadruple tempo is a riot, also at that speed you realize Jimmy Page nicked the chord progression from A Taste of Honey), various old-timey songs on overdriven electric guitar (Tennessee Waltz a la Hendrix is a lot of fun too.)
• Recent artists listened to include Red Clay Ramblers, Devo, Joan Armatrading, Carl Perkins.
• The very most recent song I’ve heard was a piano/mezzo duet of Handel’s Weep No More

Recent Movies:
Also hard since I have two young kids in a largely babysitter-free environment. The following have been mostly rentals

• Fellini’s Satyricon
• Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
• The Incredibles (on DVD with the hilarious short “Jack-Jack Attack”)
• A couple of of old and new Satr Wras movies (disappointing)
• The Big Lebowski (highly solarized but otherwise letter-perfect tribute to the film noir detective genre)

Recent Books:

• Barbara Tropp’s The Modern Art of Chinese Cooking (the best cookbook I’ve ever read, period)
• A marathon binge of Walter Mosley’s Easy Rawlins novels and short stories (for instance Devil in a Blue Dress)
• Paul Graham’s Hackers & Painters (Nice essays on society and computers)
• Alexander Tsiaras and Barry Werth’s The Architecture and Design of Man and Woman (fabulous anatomical images with translucent overlays)
• Clemente’s Clemente Anatomy (practical and very detailed)
• Susanna Clarke’s Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell (Harry Potter for grownups)
• Sally Schneider’s A New Way to Cook

Recent Cultural Events:

• The Seattle Moisture Festival including the burlesque late-show edition.
• Mary Zimmerman’s revival of Secret in the Wings which is good but not as overwhelmingly powerful as her The Odessy
• Various local art openings and street festivals

Recent Masturbatory fantasies:

Believe it or not, while my sexual fantasy life is very well developed, my the fantasies I actually masturbate to are pretty ordinary and elemental, mostly quick mental images and recollected sensations.

Recent non-masturbatory fantasies run along the following lines.

• Trying a BDSM session with Matisse to help me understand what I’m missing.
• A tactile version of the recent “real or implants” breast test that was making the rounds. (I’ve never been intimate with anyone who’s undergone breast enlargement and I’m curious.)
• Starting a coeducational sex-therapy-oriented brothel in Nevada that specialized in hands-on instruction with an emphasis on bringing what you learn home to share with one’s partner or partners. (There’s going to have to be a post to explain that one someday, eh?)
• Participate in an attempt to confirm the (highly dubious) report that sperm makes college co-eds less likely to be depressed… but not if I was onlyl assigned to the control group.
• To have some intercourse of some kind (social or sexual, either way would be equally satisfying) with several of my fellow sex bloggers. (If I wasn’t incredibly shy I’d name names.)

Actually I’m so shy I’m not going to tag anyone else to follow up, though of course everyone who wishes to is welcome to. I’d love to hear more.

Sat, 2005-05-28 22:09

It’s always hard for me when a good author stops blogging. Sometimes, though, there’s a second act. An old friend I thought was gone for good has resurfaced with a new blog and a new name.

Her latest post rolled my buttons with a sensuous fingertip! Check out Vixenwriter’s new blog, My Body As Landscape And My Pussy Is The Capital.

...

When I look at that window I wonder if you pressed me against it and dropped to your knees, my thigh up and on your shoulder – would people see and know you were kneeling there, face pressed to my pussy? Would they imagine my sounds of tortured pleasure as your tongue slid through those desire swollen folds? As you gathered my honey and took it into your body as if it were the most heavenly thing you’d ever tasted?

Would people know what your hand was doing as it slid up my thigh and beneath the hem of my skirt under the table? Would they interpret the look on my face and know the way I was biting my lip meant that you’d slid two fingers inside me? Would they know your cock was in my hand, sliding in and out of my fist? And if they did know, what do they think?

...

Read her whole post here.

Mmmm-hmmm-mmmm. That’s not a banana in my pocket, I’m just happy to see her back. :-)

Fri, 2005-05-27 19:13

Inspired by a comment from Dirty Talking Girl from Pussy Talk on my post about Wegg’s post about something DTG also posted about earlier this month… whew, let me start over.

In comments DTG said:

I think women have known about this “internal erection”, if only instinctively, since time began. I always knew there was a helluva lot more to fuckjoy than that little clit. And anyone who’s ever fingered and licked an aroused taint can see that a penis is deeply rooted in the pelvis.

DTG xxoo

I wrote my own comment in reply but as is often the case when I begin a reply it turned into, well, a whole ‘nuther post. (A common problem and one reason I don’t reply more often to comments even though I really, really appreciate receiving them!)

Anyway, I think DTG’s right that there’s more than one little (external) clit’s worth of joy in sex. Eventually even us guys figure it out. Sometimes. It’s funny how something that’s that big a deal (not to mention that large a structure) could be overlooked for so long, but I think I can provide a unified field theory of why that would be, based on stuff I’ve learned over the years.

1) Although a lot of people don’t remember, it takes a while to develop neural connections between our genitals and the brain. (This isn’t too surprising. It takes time to develop neural connections to a lot of things, as anyone who’s watched a newborn develop into a toddler will have noticed. It’s not that the signals don’t arrive in the brain, it’s that it takes a while to learn how to organize them into something coherent.)

2) Even for stereotypically quick-on-the-trigger boys it takes time to turn the very pleasant signals from penile stimulation into orgasms and the same appears to be true for girls.

3) External parts of the clitoris, like external parts of the penis, are pretty easy targets. Just being exposed to the outside world means they get constant tactile (though certainly not always erotic) stimulation which means, compared to our internal parts anyway, external pathways are already better established when it’s time to develop erotic ones. (This is based, by the way, on my own relatively late discovery of masturbation, on my even later discovery of masturbatory variations, and on relationships with a couple of pre-orgasmic women who became orgasmic during our relationships.)

4) Inside or outside, though, man or woman, it’s all pretty much based on the same tissue so presumably ongoing stimulation increases sensitivity the same way too.

5) If I’m ever given the “books” tag I’m going to say that Shere Hite’s Hite Report, despite several flaws, is one of the most important ones for me. Among other things she mentions that a majority of women (and, in my sample-of-one, men) typically learn one way to come and then stick with it. It’s not that one can’t come other ways, but for an awful lot of us we stick with what we know, even if, eventually, we could learn to come from other kinds of stimulation of other parts of the same genital structure.

6) I’m just guessing here, and I’m not defending anybody’s theories, but if I were to try to make sense of early-mid-20th-century ideas about “mature” vaginal orgasms vs. “immature” clitoral ones, and if I were to try to make sense of the elusiveness of “urethral sponge” orgasms in women or even prostate orgasms in men, I might stop taking MRIs and doing autopsies and start investigating how long it takes for an unfamiliar form of stimulation to become first erotic and then orgasmic.

7) Put 1-6 together and you start to see why the inner clitoris has seemed so elusive to so many people, despite (as DTF says) women’s instinctive understanding that there’s a lot more than meets the eye.

Please feel free to respond with reinforcement or corrections in comments or in your own blogs. Extra credit for pointers to other sources of information!

Fri, 2005-05-27 18:36

Little intimacies and tender gestures are what separates casual sex from the kind of stereotypical shag-in-the-cloakroom-between-sets sex I think most people have in mind when they worry about “no strings attached” sex.

The author of Unfurling: my sexuality has a great post tonight.

I went out to lunch with sexy sexy office girl, and some other people I work with. I had a chocolate cake for desert. While I was eating it, deep in conversation with sexy sexy office girl, she picked up a spare fork and started eating my cake with me.

It wasn’t presumptuous or rude. Just intimate, and I loved it. I had thought it was entirely divorced from sexuality, but at least to me, it’s not. I’ve developed an erection while recounting this story.

Read his whole post here.

I’d also add that — whether you ever sleep with each other or not — things like sharing cake like that is another critical privilege of friendship, one that shouldn’t be reserved only for significant others. Drawing the friends-with-privileges line at sex kind of misses the point of friendship and privileges. (And, come to think of it, sex!)

Thu, 2005-05-26 19:04

Figleaf in a Kilt, ca. ~1959

Originally uploaded by Figleaf.

Proof that I wore kilts before kilts were cool. (Wait, is that a good thing? If they weren’t cool… and I was wearing them… dang! Doesn’t that just means I was already a nerd! :-) )

Freya, best wishes from all of us, where ever you go and what ever you do.

Thu, 2005-05-26 18:37

Update: This is a repost. So it looks like Flickr images show up correctly. That’s good. Now I can speak briefly to the “headless horseman” problem of naked male bloggers.

Ok, first of all, it’s not just a problem with naked male bloggers, but for whatever reason people complain more when men do it. (I assume you know what I’m talking about: men who post photos only of their, um, lower-mid torsos and thus don’t show their faces.)

First the general problem: anonymity. You’ve got to be in a pretty secure social/employment/political/family space to identify yourself as a sex blogger in the first place. Next you have to be pretty confident to post “compromising” photos that include your face. (Witness now arch-conservative moralist Laura Schlessinger’s “youthful indiscretions” photoset, available if you care to Google for it.) In other words, identifiable photos on the internet are more permanent than tattoos, in the sense that you can theoretically remove tattoos. So that’s problem one.

The second problem for men is a more technical problem of scale. If you want to include genitals and face you have to include everything in between and photos at that scale tend to diminish whatever mid-torso items men tend to want others to see in its best light.

So along those lines the choices are: big picture, small parts; big parts, small picture. (I’ll get to whether this is the correct construction, in the sense that that’s really what other people want to see, in a moment.)

Add the two factors together — a reasonable desire for anonymity and the impression viewers will be more impressed at more limited scales — and you wind up with mostly torsos. QED.

The feedback I’ve gotten is that, in general, men’s dangly bits out of context aren’t as exciting to women as women’s dimply bits are to men. Quick note before everyone hits the comment link: I’m not saying dangly bits aren’t exciting — not at all! — I’m just saying more people seem to prefer them with more context than less. Thus the appellation “headless horseman” for those who don’t provide enough.

My solution, therefore, has been to show more and preserve anonymity by posting tiny, evocative-rather-than-explicit thumbnails. In the unlikely event anyone ever really wanted a larger version there’s always email.

—-

Aw Bullwinkle, that trick never works

LateNightSlowShutterIndex01

Originally uploaded by Figleaf.

To save bandwidth I’m trying Flikr’s Blog This Photo feature.

This is a thumbnail index of some photos I took late at night with a timer and slow shutter, lit only from a single light in the other room. It involved sitting very, very still for a very long time.