Camogirl of The cirl in camouflage talks about ejaculating during orgasm.

...Mom is sort of a bit of a lax housekeeper, which is fine, generally. ...we didn’t launder our bedclothes all that often. Once a month, maybe.

But lately, I’ve had to do it a lot more. And, as hard as this is for me to talk about, I’ll even tell you why (this also relates to why I have a nearly impossible time coming with someone else).

...

If you haven’t figured this out, I’m about to tell you. Most of the time when I come, I actually come. And when girls do it, it’s not like when guys do it. There is … um, more. So I generally keep a towel handy, but when you forget, it sucks. Time to strip the fucking bed. Again.

...

So anyway, there’s my secret for the fucking year. I am a little nervous about posting it, but at the same time, awareness is a good thing and why should I be embarrassed about something for which every woman has, at least, the capacity? I’m sure there are girls like me who get way too tense about coming (and then, of course, can’t) in front of others because of this — Lord knows I still have a hard time. And if we hang out and you read this anyway and now you’re all weirded out? Your own damn fault, dude. You can’t say I didn’t warn you.

Read these quotes in context here.

It seems like almost anything I could possibly say (or ever have said) about the actual event (from “Cool, I’ll wash your sheets anytime” to “Eww, I’d have to wash my sheets”) would be more trite than anything else. Instead I’ll make to meta observations.

First, when nobody talks about it everyone thinks they’re the only ones. The partners I knew who came that way were wicked freaked out about it and, like Camogirl, found it almost impossible to let themselves come with a partner. And I just realized there might have been other partners who simply made excuses rather than reveal they came that way. And the first time I encountered it I’d never heard of it either… but the next time I obviously had and could say so.

Second, I think it’s almost impossible to underestimate the impact Ladas, Whipple & Perry’s original book, The G-Spot, has had on people’s lives. If people are shy now think how they felt before their experiences were acknowledged by the authors. (Of course since then it’s become something of a porn clich&eacu; for some and an unachievable — and perhaps mythical — endeavor for others. Which, perversely, can itself be a source of shyness.)

Glad Camogirl brought it up.

Hugo Schwyzer of, well, Hugo Schwyzer has been dwelling on age lately and has a (rhetorical) question.

In a comment below this post, Joe Smith writes:

A friend of mine, who is a serious mack daddy pickup artist, assures me that THE most desirable age for a man is 38.

Yeah, right. Does this oracle of wisdom, this mack daddy, happen to be near 38?

...

Also, folks: at what age do you think you were at your all-around most desirable? At 39, I’m the happiest I’ve ever been — and if happiness is a key component of attractiveness, I’d have to say now. Though my body might be better now than ever, my features are not what they were in the mid-90s. I peaked at 29, in late 1996 or early 1997. Quite possibly the second weekend in March.

Since it’s his question and not mine, head over and answer here.

Me? In my teens and twenties I was so skinny I could have stuck out my tongue and trick-or-treated as a zipper. Plus I had pretty horrible acne till my mid-20s. But I was evidently attractive enough between 19 and maybe 22 to have had a few dozen partners. In my late 20s and 30s I got into extraordinarily great shape, growing from 135 to nearly 180 pounds by running, skiiing, hiking and volcano climbing, soccer, dancing, aerobics and water aerobics, and generally cavorting around. I met my partner then and must have been attractive enough since she first went out with me, then married me… and really, how much more attractive do we really have to be? And then I turned 50 and started posting photos here and for the first time ever, really, you left real, non-grudgingly admiring remarks. But when I was 38…? Gee, I can’t remember anyone looking twice at me.

But truth be told? Since everything else is either a memory and it’s too late, or something that hasn’t happened and we’ll have to wait. So the best… and only… age to be is our age today. To paraphrase W.C. Fields, considering the alternatives we ought to make the best of what we’ve got.

Fascinating story in USA Today this morning (via Pam Spaulding at Pandagon) about federal efforts to extend “Abstinence-only” education to 19 to 29 year-old women.

The federal government’s “no sex without marriage” message isn’t just for kids anymore.

Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in federal money that will be available to the states under revised federal grant guidelines for 2007.

The government says the change is a clarification. But critics say it’s a clear signal of a more directed policy targeting the sexual behavior of adults.

“They’ve stepped over the line of common sense,” said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit that supports sex education. “To be preaching abstinence when 90% of people are having sex is in essence to lose touch with reality. It’s an ideological campaign. It has nothing to do with public health.”

Abstinence education programs, which have focused on preteens and teens, teach that abstaining from sex is the only effective or acceptable method to prevent pregnancy or disease. They give no instruction on birth control or safe sex.

The National Center for Health Statistics says well over 90% of adults ages 20-29 have had sexual intercourse.

But Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the Department of Health and Human Services, said the revision is aimed at 19- to 29-year-olds because more unmarried women in that age group are having children.

Government data released last month show that 998,262 births in 2004 were to unmarried women 19-29, the ages with the most births to unmarried women.

“The message is ‘It’s better to wait until you’re married to bear or father children,’ “ Horn said. “The only 100% effective way of getting there is abstinence.”

Read all the extra about it here.

A couple of points spring to mind.

• First, since I intend to spend most of my post tearing the program a new one I would like to give kudos to Horn for saying “It’s better to wait until you’re married to bear or father children.” It’s a big deal to me because I think it’s the first time I’ve ever, ever heard an AE advocate hint that unwed fathers might have anything to do with Teh Unwed Pregnancy.
• But that’s all the nicer I’m willing to be because it’s still only lip service. Horn’s preceding sentence is the same old all-women’s-fault-all-the-time: “...the revision is aimed at 19- to 29-year-olds because more unmarried women in that age group are having children.”
• Do I even need to explain why leaving men off the hook for before-the-fact responsibility further degrades and marginalizes them? (Answer: Perhaps I do. Assuming… teaching… broadcasting that men are irresponsible excuses them from being, well, responsible! )
• Do I even need to explain why obsessing over abstinence to the exclusion of all else is immoral, unethical, counter-productive, and factually wrong? (Answer: No. Countless others have exhaustively explained why. Despite it being a self-evident no-brainer.)

Now.

Let’s see if we can’t get a little creative with this Abstinence-only business.

We’ve already seen, over and over and over that for most people define “sex” exclusively in terms of penis-in-vagina intercourse.

Oral sex? Not sex. Nope? There’s absolutely no sex involved if you only kiss your way down your partner’s body, unbuttoning buttons, unzipping zippers, baring their breasts or chests and devouring them with hot open mouths before dipping lower to slide their pants down or their skirts up, pressing their legs apart with your warm palms, trailing your fingers over their bellies and asses as you nip, and lick, slurp or swallow, bob or weave your head as they first sigh, then moan, then cry out… before returning the favor.

Phone sex? Nope. Say what you will it’s just not sex you’re only sharing breathy sighs, steamy fantasies, and meticulous descriptions of how you’re mirroring each other’s directions as you roll and handle your own flesh.

Anal sex? You’d really want to use patience, a lot of common sense, and, of course, condoms. And you’ll always want to warm each other up with lots and lots of pre-play and even more lubrication. And to avoid any other kind agony you need to start agonizingly slowly. But people who enjoy it seem to really enjoy it. Anal sex might not be for everybody but then it’s not sex either.

Hands on genitals? Driving through the night together idly fondling each other, tempting each other, teasing each other, till you find a park or pull-out where you can kiss feverish kisses, keep your heads up to watch for passers by, while rhythmically sliding your hands over each other’s increasingly slippery cocks or clits, synchronizing your strokes to the flutters and rolls of each other’s half-lidded eyes before cupping each others juices to save the upholstery? Third base at best.

“Dry humping?” I say oh yes! The standard definition of “sex” says oh no. Also, a stack of lap-dance-related case law says if there’s so much as a single layer of tricot between then definitely not.

Sixty-nine? (That’s still just oral so opere citato.)

BDSM? Is Mistress Matisse in jail? There’s no sex involves so of course not! Golden showers? Eww, maybe, but no sex. Fur-suiting? As long as the Velcro stays shut it’s not sex. Full-body lotion demonstrations?” Evidently not. Frottage, intercural/interfemoral, axillary, or mammary intercourse? Nuh-uh. Homosexuality? Lesbianism? Rick Santorum might want to cross his legs about it but it’s gotta be penis-in-vagina so still no “sex.”

Now me? My definition of sex starts way, waaay before PIV intercourse but maybe I’m just a prudish libertine. I’m just sayin’ that since none of the activities I’ve outlined above involve penis-in-vagina intercourse, and since penis-in-vagina is by far the most common way to wind up with an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy, it seems to me we could use some of that grant money to show people how to have a wonderfully healthy, active, and fulfilling sex life while still encouraging them to abstain from PIV intercourse before marriage.

Men’s Rights, pro-feminism, etc. Too bad all the good terms have been taken by people who are on the wrong track. I’ve just gone through a personal transformation and I’d like to have something to call it. “Menimism” isn’t going to cut it.

I’m not very far along. And it might peter out. But while replying to comments from Friday’s post about Scott Adams’s blog, with a lot of help from remarks by Amanda Marcotte, I’m starting to catch on to an idea about men’s consciousness that stands in men’s relationship in society rather than men’s relationship with women.

I don’t think I can articulate it clearly so instead I’m going to post the comments and my replies to them so you can see how they’re starting to unfold.

So, taking a very deep breath, here goes.

Comments

October 27, 2006 06:22 PM

Comment from
Avalon

Figleaf. I was intrigued by your contention that anti-Feminist thought is underlain by a negative stereotype of men. I agree that there are many men that are very well behaved and have themselves under control. I also don’t like the negative stereotype of men that you described. My male friends are invariably wonderful respectful men. I loved the imagery of rapists as squirrel-brained, self-licking sorts that could not keep their teeth off a steak! We laughed for at least 10 minutes. However, as a young person I was subject to repeated harassment and even assault from young men. Therefore, I am very careful, especially with regard to the young women in my care.

Figleaf…I’m sorry….I have to pick up on your example…. I know that your focus was on the male stereotype, not the religion…please don’t take offense!!

Um…you must see the Sheik’s comment and its report within the media within the general trend for stereotyping Muslims as violent threats to all that is civilized. For many days the only report in Australian media was that women that did not wear headscarves were like pieces of meat. The Sheik actually said that women that behaved provocatively, wore inappropriate clothing and no headscarf were tempting some men too much.

I disagree with the implied contention in his sermon that women are responsible for rape. Rape is essentially a crime of power, not sexuality, and victims can be highly unattractive in conventional terms. However, he was speaking within his own religious context, so I would not normally mix in. In any event, the situation is being dealt with by Muslim elders in their own way, lets leave it to them.

It is unfortunate that the Sheik said what he did, but how many pastors have to be worried about what they say in their own church in the context of their own religion? We say similar things to young women in our church – if you dress and behave provocatively you will get the wrong type of attention. On the other hand, we tell our young men that there is no excuse for inappropriate touching or indeed rape.

It’s not just some Muslims that think that women ask to be raped. My Father overheard Christian men in the local bar say just the same thing. He never went in there again! Also, I found a mainstream American site saying that if you were looking for a woman that would agree to have sex with you, then you should observe behavior and clothing before choosing your target. These instances could be construed the same way… and the communities involved vilified similarly.

I refuse to take part in any mass hysteria that is stereotyping members of my community (either Muslims or men in general) as rapists and violent threats to society. I refuse to be manipulated by the mass media and political forces within our society. I refuse any part of the racist political agenda that is driving discrimination and violence against innocent people. Many Muslim men in Sydney where the Sheik lives have to escort their wives and mothers to the shops because of overt racism whipped up by the media. One Mosque has been burnt in my city and an unarmed round the clock guard needed to be placed on another.

....mmmmmm….

[I’ll stick with Adams’s point that anybody, of any culture, who believes that men are literally incapable of controlling themselves and that that’s why women should walk around in full-size burlap sacks has an astonishingly, insultingly low opinion of men. That the cleric has an even lower opinion of men than (many) Westerners is immaterial in the face of the young men you encountered who felt, nor feel, any obligation to control themselves around young women. It’s a characteristic of human beings to live up to whatever standard they’re raised to believe is expected of them… and generally no more. Thanks, Avalon. —fl]

October 27, 2006 08:00 PM

Comment from
Cuddlesslut

Being Australian myself, this particular issue is extremely personal to me. These statements were made after it was discovered that a bunch of teenagers had attacked and abused a young girl in a park and had filmed the entire thing. The “movie” was then circulated among high schools around the country (you know how quickly these things spread) until one teenage girl was disgusted enough to report it to the police. The way these boys treated the poor girl was disgusting, beating her, lighting her hair on fire, stripping her of her clothes and tossing them into a pond/mudpit, urinating on her, and then raping her.
When those particular comments were made there was instant public outcry here and 99% of the Muslim community are asking for his resignation as they strongly disagree with his opinion, especially pending “the movie” being shoved into lives in such a harsh and violent way. They show excerpts on the news (covering her face) and there is not a human alive that I know who could possibly watch it and take the boys side in the debate…

Sorry for the rambling comments – but this one is personal.

[First of all I really don’t want this to be about the cleric because, in particular, there’s a local sports broadcaster who doubles as a “hot talk” radio host who, despite being pure-bred lily white and not particularly religious at all (else he’d be in church instead of a broadcast booth most Sunday mornings) renders approximately the same opinion in situations like this: she should have known better than to X, Y, or Z. And implicit underlying assumption is that women shouldn’t do X’s, Y’s, or Z’s because men are hyenas. Nor, I should add, should he be singled out because there are plenty of other men and women from all sorts of walks of life in all sorts of places who also believe it. I agree that almost all men are actually pretty decent guys — my experience with very small boys is that generally they want to be good. So why are we have such low expectations for them that by the time they reach the age of the boys in the video they’re capable of such bestial acts? I ought to add, by the way, that Pfc. Lynndie England’s behavior at Abu Ghraib demonstrates that a) it’s not intrinsically male behavior and b) that, again, it’s a matter of expectations at every scale. The conservative (which is synonymous with anti-feminist) response that, Pfc. England notwithstanding, it was just a matter of “well, boys will be boys” and “harmless fraternity pranks” is damning proof of their low opinion of men. Thanks, CS. —fl]

October 27, 2006 08:04 PM

Comment from
JeN

I couldn’t stop giggling at what Adams wrote.

Since I’m studying the history of sexuality in Canada in one of my classes, this post reminds me that men were raised to be “real men” by being able to control their sexual desires. If/When they were unable to do so, they became less of a man.

As for women, it’s up so us to always appear to be pure and chaste in order to become “real women” for if we aren’t then we aren’t able to fulfill our “true purpose in life” which is to be wives and mothers.

eyeroll

I do wonder how many Muslim men have beeb raped by women? Like there’d ever be any who would report it…

I can’t help but shake my head at a large part of humanity.

[Yup, I read the same sort of thing in Coontz’s “Marriage, a History.” Until roughly the beginning of the 20th Century real men were indeed supposed to very tightly control their impulses. And yes, generally when they failed they were thought less of rather than more of. Stephenson’s Victorian-era “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” was entirely a morality tale of what happens when men follow their “natural” impulses. Good point. One imagines there needs to be some sort of compromise here. Thanks, JeN. —fl]

October 27, 2006 10:19 PM

Comment from
Five of Nine

It may not be Islam it self, but its assimilation of cultural traditions that portray women as the seducer and men having no responsibility in controlling their behavior. As Avalon mentioned, that idea is not peculiar to Islam, other cultures and religions have perpetuated it. Is it something about most men, where they don’t want to take responsibility for there behavior? When it is religiously sanctioned, what incentive do they have.

[it’s worth pointing out that until roughly the 1700s Westerners also held that men had the moral compasses and women the opportunistic seducers. And today more of the world still believes that than believes our largely Puritan-influenced, largely Eurocentric reversal. (Which, incidentally, plays hob with various equally Puritan-influenced, Eurocentric Evo/Devo theories of gender determinism.) As for who’s to blame, I blame the men and women who spend so much time obsessing over the slightest blemish in women’s virtue that they utterly neglect to instruct men in virtue at all. (I remember hearing an inner-city woman say the problem there was “We love our sons but we raise our daughters.” Which, I think, is more universal than she imagined.) Thanks, Five. —fl]

October 27, 2006 11:24 PM

Comment from Rae

I won’t go into my views on the religious aspects, but I do wish to say that a similar statement was made by a university official in my state in regards to a high-profile rape case at the university—the official said “You can’t throw a chicken leg out in a parking lot and not expect ants to crawl all over it.”

It’s called victim-blaming, and it doesn’t just happen with rape. It happens with poverty, with CDV, with young pregnant mothers, with virtually everything. As a social worker-to-be and a victim advocate, it’s easy for me to see the effects of person-in-environment. On a macro-level, things make sense in regards to personal interactions, and also how we’re not taught to/or discouraged to see things through a critical lens.

I would have to argue, though, that it’s worse to be viewed as a self-licking rapist cat or a hungry mindless worker ant, than a piece of raw uncovered meat, or a spicy southern-fried chicken wing.

Let me elaborate—as a cat or an ant, you still are seen as having agency, are an animated being, have control, self-ability—you have power/over. As a piece of meat, things are done to you. You are totally objectified—you are seen as something dead and thus acted upon with no control over fate.

I understand it’s bad to be stereotyped, either way. But I would still have to say it’s better to be seen as something with agency than a piece of dead non-human something with no ability to say no, to stop what’s being done to you—and then get blamed for it afterwards, suffer the long-term physical and psychological trauma, while little to nothing happens to the actor, the ant, the cat.

Just my two cents.

xoxo,
Rae

[“Let me elaborate—as a cat or an ant, you still are seen as having agency, are an animated being, have control, self-ability…” vs. “As a piece of meat, things are done to you.” I’d argue it’s actually worse than you think because the moralists are effectively saying that women have agency until they unbutton one too many buttons, or walk to the car at night, or whatever thing the moralists blame them for doing that turns them into male ant or cat bait. And that that agency, that failure to exercise that agency virtuously, is what makes it women’s fault. It’s a genuinely hellish double-standard, yes. But they don’t even give men that much credit. It’s all just “Ugg, him see unbuttoned button. Him go berserk. It her fault. What she expect? Ook, ook.” It’s just starting to soak in for me how totally weak an indictment “blame the victim” really is. Not because women don’t deserve better — you certainly do! — but because it so totally fucking leaves men mired in the animality of low expectations. —fl]

October 28, 2006 08:46 AM

Comment from Avalon

I really appreciate Figleaf and everybody that comments on his views. You really stimulate my thinking and facilitate discussion within my friendship group!

OK…so…..

Firstly, I read that humans have a natural tendency to blame others when things go wrong and take credit when things go bad. That could help explain victim blaming. Secondly, last night I discussed with a friend the paradigm of men pushing and women being reticent as the traditional sexual relationship dynamic. In this context men might be seen as pushing too much. My male friend mentioned that some women also push too much. So…maybe the problem of sexual misbehavior and blaming the victim is a human condition rather than just a male thing. We may tend to vilify males because the media tends to report male misbehavior a lot more than female misbehavior (and for other reasons).

Why do people hurt others?

I think that people that hurt others generally rationalize their behavior, for example, those young men that attacked me did not seem to feel guilty and there appeared to be acceptance in society in general for their behavior (may I mention in the context of the debate about dress that I was dressed at all times as a conservative and non-attractive female). As my mate said last night – attitudes have changed! We cannot judge the past using present values. (Figleaf is right in emphasizing the influence of societal values)

Nevertheless, while I am very tolerant of differences and capable of understanding diverse others, I cannot support the exploitation and harm of vulnerable people, especially children (but also adults of any gender), whatever the value system!

What is the point of view of the victim? (thanks Rae)

For many years I was the stereotypical victim: vulnerable, passive and accepting. My chief attacker blamed me and felt totally justified in her actions. For years I wondered what I did wrong. It helped to see that it was not my problem and to frame her violence in terms of her problem. But that did not take back my power. I was still the “meat”. I was still the southern fried chicken wing in the car park!

My power returned when I asked myself, not “was I to blame?”, but “what could I do to protect myself?”. I realized that I could (as an adult) stay away from circumstances in which I was vulnerable, learn how to defend myself verbally and physically and report misbehavior.

But back to the original debate…it was about stereotyping of males and anti-Feminism…I am really curious to learn more…

[I think I can lay it out for you (though I’m formulating as I go.) I say it’s anti-Feminism’s fault because anti-Feminists put all the emphasis on women’s faults — you could have done this, you shouldn’t have done that — and consequently they’re unable to hold men responsible. Which is a very peculiar, but sort of internally consistent, attitude for a philosophy that claims that men are the superior gender. I mean seriously they’re unable to see past “blame the victim” for the same reason most of us can’t see past the occasional lunatic who jumps the fence into a hyaena’s cage. Of course the hyaena’s going to eat them so it’s lunatic’s fault… and since they genuinely believe that men have no more responsibility than a hyaena they’re conceptually incapable of blaming anyone else but their victims too. Thus my contention (via Amanda Marcotte) that anti-feminists are far, far more anti-men than feminists are. (Amanda speaks about “...how profoundly anti-male anti-feminist thought is, and conversely how feminists tend to show more respect for men and their potential than non-feminists.”) Feminists demand that men behave responsibly because they believe we’re capable of it. Anti-feminists can’t even imagine it and therefore lay all responsibility, and blame, on women instead. Eww! Thanks for asking exactly the right question, Avalon. —fl]

October 28, 2006 06:07 PM

Comment from
Five of Nine

Is it about stereotyping males, when only about ten percent of the worlds population of women have equality as we do in the western world? Even here, when it is about rape, pregnancy and defining moral attitude about sex, underlying assumptions rise to the top. She really did want it, it’s her responsibility for birth control and she must be a whore, she’s slept with too many men.

It’s more implied in that sermon than was reported, it puts the responsibility totally on women and says that men by nature are weak when it comes to sexual desire. In places where women are required to wear burkas, raising an eyebrow can be justification for their murder. I think the sermon is dangerous not only because it diminishes the victim, but sets up the scenario for even more violent attacks to occur.
I do know that not all men are morally challenged, but I am concerned with how many that are.

[”...it puts the responsibility totally on women and says that men by nature are weak…” Exactly! “I do know that not all men are morally challenged, but I am concerned with how many that are.” There’s only one way to find out and that would be to actually try instructing men in morality. I rather expect we’d pick it up pretty quickly if it were expected of us. And more and more I’m convinced that feminists expect it more than do anti-feminists. Thanks, Five. —fl]

October 28, 2006 07:29 PM