Recently in "Guest-blogging" topics Category

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

Auguste of Pandagon asks an uncharacteristic but interesting question: What are the Ten Worst Books...

..to read DURING sex. Probably best left unexplored is why I thought of this in the first place.

Starters:
The Rules
He’s Just Not That Into You
The Prince
The Wealth of Nations
Battlefield Earth

From Lauren:
The Ultimate Weight Solution: The 7 Keys to Weight Loss Freedom by Dr. Phil
Atkins Diabetes Revolution
Who Moved My Cheese? (Bonus points if partner is ALSO reading, “Nobody Moved My Cheese” by Ross Shafer)

From Amanda:
Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - Unabridged

Answering “No one should read during sex” is automatic memefail on the grounds of breaking the fourth wall.

Read the quote in context here.

I'd add that outside of certain specific, agreed-upon semi-role-playing situations you probably shouldn't read sex manuals during sex. Not Joy of Sex, not 101 Nights in Bed, nor any "ten best" tips from Cosmo or Details. Definitely nothing with anything like "How to..." in either the title or subtitle. We've usually got enough anxiety as it is. As Scarleteen's Heather Corinna says, idealized procedures and checklists rarely work on actual people. She also reminds her readers that mutual exploration and "fumbling around" are *highly* underrated ways to get to know each other.

If you're into it reading steamy passages to each other is obviously fine. Actually if you're both *into* it then reading anything including the phone book to each other is fine, but do check in with each other before assuming.

What to Expect When You're Expecting is right off (actually I don't think *anybody* should read that. It's amazingly dour. Also lay off Hegel's Phänomenologie des Geistes, including the introduction. (It's great reading, just not during sex.)

And if I can just get meta for a moment (ok, more meta) it's always ok to read fortune cookies... *in bed!*

What's your idea of worst possible books to read *during* sex? It's a great, silly, obviously optional meme but if you're into it you can put your answers in comments or on your own blog.

Kit Roskelly has a "Kink 101" article up at the F-Word. The article is pitched at the perfect level for feminists who are concerned, but not deadset-convinced, that BDSM violates feminist principles. If you're kinky, feminist, and sick to death of having to argue about this issue, Roskelly's article is not for you. But if you're on the fence, it's worth checking out.

I'm not a kink expert by any means; I just like to whack my boyfriend with things, like to be whacked with things, and have attended a few kink events. Most of what Roskelly says strikes me as true and helpful; I especially like "feminism should not have a prescriptive stance on female sexuality" and "Consent is an absolute requirement of sexual interaction". You could nitpick about the safewords (you don't need to say 'red light' if you have some other way of communicating that things are going really really wrong, and you should probably agree on a safe tap before anybody stuffs anything in anybody else's mouth) but the basic idea of safewords is pretty sound. Both partners need a way to say, "stop" and be taken seriously.

I have one substantive criticism of Roskelly's article. (This criticism is not new. Trinityva, who writes at SM Feminist and The Strangest Alchemy, has made this point repeatedly; my favorites are here and here.) Twice in her article, Roskelly urges kinky feminists to be mindful of the social context in which their desires arise. But what does mindfulness entail, exactly? Are we supposed to seek the reasons for our kinky fantasies and desires? At this point, I don't think anybody really knows what causes people to have one set of sexual tastes rather than another. And if you did know what caused your sexual desires, what would you do with that information? Learning that your rape fantasies are the result of childhood trauma wouldn't necessarily eliminate your rape fantasies.

There are things in the neighborhood to be mindful of. Are you really satisfied by the kinky sex you're having, or are you doing it because you feel pressured? (And being in the dominant role doesn't mean that you're necessarily satisfied by the sex; submissive people can be very good at manipulating their partners into indulging fetishes they don't really get off on, in a way that's not reciprocal. Bitchy Jones' kinky sexism category has a depressingly large number of examples.) It's also a good idea to reflect on how your expression of your desires affects other people. Does the person next to you faint at the idea of needles? If so, it's not very respectful to play with needles right in front of them. Does the event you're organizing have pictures of naked women, and only women, on the walls? If so, you may be alienating some of the women who attend. In my experience, BDSM people are already more mindful about this stuff than average, but extra reminders never hurt.

I'm on board with mindfulness if it's meant to apply to actions. But what's inside your head is yours.

[Note: I'm on vacation in what may be very limited internet service so this is a pre-recorded and (I very much hope!) a self-publishing post. I may not have much opportunity to reply to comments but you're comments are still very welcome. I'll reply as soon as I can. You're some of the best commenters in the blogsphere so you're always welcome to respond spiritedly but respectfully to each other's comments while I'm away. --fl]

Things I love about boxer shorts:
Useless fly
That lets in curious fingers.
Wide legs
Wide enough for an exploring hand.
But mostly,
You underneath!

(25 words)

[A regular commenter, P. Burke, left this 25-word post after my 25-Words-or-Less meditation on women's underwear. She says she's pretty much on hiatus with her blog and agreed to let me post it here instead. --fl]

[Note: This post at least temporarily revives a long-dormant RealAdultSex.com category, Guest-Blogging Topics. This post offers my rough take on the core meaning of the term "sex positive." If you've got different ideas as to what "sex positive" means then by all means please feel free to air it out either here in comments or on your own blog if you have one. (If you *don't* have one but would like to start now they're astonishingly easy to setup.) --fl]

In comments to my "But Are You Positive?" post SugarMag asked

Figleaf, I am very confused by your question. OK so, sex positive means pro sex, right?

The short answer is no, sex-positive really *doesn't* mean pro-sex. For instance there are *plenty* of people (oh, say, traffickers in sex slaves, or their customers) who are chirpy/cheerily pro sex. And, perhaps more surprisingly, there are plenty of sex-positive people who would never consider having sex themselves.

It's also absolutely the case that, just as certain Victorians used words like "enlightened" to justify sexual activities that weren't enlightened at all, and just as certain individuals in the 1960s and 1970s used words like "liberal" to justify exploitive behavior, it's inevitable that certain people would use "sex positive" as leverage for some pretty seriously negative behavior. So just *saying* you're sex-positive, or complaining that someone else isn't, isn't going to cut it.

So what exactly *is* it supposed to mean then? Well, I've gone out and done a little Googling around to confirm it but my sex-ed professor last quarter did a pretty good job of consolidating both what constitutes "sex positivity" and, even more important maybe, what constitutes "sex negativity." I'll cite some further reading at the end of this post but for now I'll just crib from my (admittedly sparse) lecture notes:

Sex positivity:

• Sexual behaviors are pleasurable, not just for procreation
• Sex is for pleasure; it's a form of *play*
• There's an absence of shame
• No one makes another feel bad about *wanting* something sexual. (Whether they agree to engage is entirely separate.)
• Agency not objectification for all parties
• Everyone always has the freedom to decline
• There's a gender and orientation-free perspective. (This doesn't have to mean you have to be polymorphous, just that you're accepting of those who are.)
• No moral judgments about masturbation, virginity, asexuality, and celibacy
• Sexuality is an element of health -- appropriate amounts are good for mental and physical well-being
• Sex safety (a.k.a. "safe sex" or "safer sex") is strongly endorsed
• Developmentally appropriate sex education is strongly endorsed
• Contraception is strongly endorsed where pregnancy is a risk and is not desired.
• Accepts porn under specifiable conditions
• Uses inclusive language
• Respects unique and individual preferences (what's true for you or me isn't universal)
• Comprehensive definition of sexuality

And notes for what constitutes sex negativity:

• shame and blame oriented
• privatizing
• prohibitions
• controlling

In other words, with sex negativity you wind up with people actually *caring more* that you have sex, how you have sex, with whom you have sex, and how often because in the context of shame and blame, for instance, it's not just that you might be "doing it," it's that you might be doing it "wrong," or, in a lot of ways worse, you might be doing it "better!" (That might give me a double opportunity for shame and blame, right? I could shame you for having it and blame myself for not enjoying it as much!)

Although, of course, thanks to the privacy angle we're not supposed to discuss it, we pretend we don't have it, and so we wind up in situations where we won't actually talk to our *partners* about the sex we have with each other, *but!* We *will* talk about sex with our partners, or about the sex we're *pretending* to have, in locker rooms, powder rooms, and, of course, on magazine covers. In terms of prohibitions we don't just prohibit the big stuff like sex with those who can't or won't consent, we publish lists of "turn ons and turn offs that might surprise you" in magazines and call it educational. And finally, in terms of control? Oh, from that you get everything from archetypes chastity belts and threats of castration to divorce case law involving "alienation of affection," to the domestic abuse of cloistering, to really trivial, ostensibly "pro-sex" things like pages-long how-to check lists and guides to this or that or the other sex act that can't really be memorized, may not be that accurate (see "your experience or mine aren't universal," above), and in any event create myriad ways to "do it wrong."

So that's the *extremely* roughed-out version of what "sex positivity" does or doesn't officially mean. But rough as it is I think it helps clarify that it really isn't just another way to say "pro sex."

Notes:

• What does sex positive mean?, by Cory Silverberg of About.com
• Easton and Liszt's The Ethical Slut: A Guide to Infinite Sexual Possibilities
• The term may have been first articulated in its modern sense in Carol Queen's Real Live Nude Girl: Chronicles of Sex-Positive Culture
• If you have other good sources let me know in comments or email and I'll add them to this list.

So the other day I ressurected an extremely short (non-poetic) story form based on the question "What turns you on in 25 words or less?" (See previous examples) and got a pleasant surprise: contributions from readers!

I like the form a lot because you only have room to communicate the bones of an erotic idea and that leaves readers free to let their imaginations, and their own preferences, fill in the rest.

From Cathy

For seven years my eyes had not seen and my ears had not heard the message your goodbye kiss sent straight through to my toes. (25 words)

From E

The sound of your voice saying my name, intimately close yet miles away, like an ephemeral touch of your fingers on my skin. (23 words)

And from P. Burke

He asked me to hit him, so I did. It left a bright red mark. Years later, I suspect he still masturbates to that memory. (25 words)

Feel free to chime in either here in comments or elsewhere.

Update -- contributions from comments here.

From Danielle

At our goodbye, he kissed my cheek, hugged me, let his hand linger at my hip longer than entirely appropriate. I savored the sweet frisson. (25 words)

From Cathy

I notice your strong hands and thighs and imagine my bare bottom rising to meet your spanks, humping the invisible cock to relieve the sting. (25 words)

From Tambopaxi

My god! The way she looked at me! I felt a warmth in my chest and a tightness in my pants. (21 words)

From E

Dream of my mouth on you: the last thing you say as we part. Lonely, I catch my breath and am wet in an instant. (25 words)

In comments, Kochanie, who guest blogs at Literate Perversions made a suggestion for a post that seemed so to the point that... well, I'll just let her say it.

...your posts have focused on the *real* issues of the Foley debacle, rather than the sensationalism or partisan politics.

However, I do have a favor to ask. I think it is time to stop discussing Foley, and time to remind your readers that the 2006 election is not that far away. I know yours is not a political blog, but I do know you are a strong supporter of contraception as a way to avoid unwanted pregnancies. The 2006 mid-term elections will decide the following: all U.S. House members, 33 senators and 36 governors. This election will have far more impact on reproductive rights than any presidential election.

The local elections can prove to be just as crucial as the congressional, senate and gubernatorial races. Policies and appropriations that determine the availability of reproductive services to the poor are determined at the local level (remember -- federal funds cannot be used to pay for abortions). For example, depending upon which candidate wins the post of a county board president, abortions that had been made available to poor women may be stopped by the veto power of that new president -- without the approval of the county board or the voters.

As one pro-choice organization stated: Pro-choice candidates only lose their elections when pro-choice voters stay home on Election Day. So I would consider it a personal favor, Figleaf, if you could point your readers to the various sites, such as the Planned Parenthood affiliates, which provide information on pro-choice candidates for the upcoming election.

Although it's a truth I take to be self-evident, I'm willing to provide equal time to someone who imagines they disagree with Kochanie's proposition that enfranchised American adults who are concerned about the direction of reproductive rights should vote in the upcoming election.

If any of my readers wishes to submit links to related voter information sites, pro or (I say this reluctantly) con, I'll be happy to promote them to the main body of this post.

Thanks, Kochanie.

Update:

• In comments Kate recommends Voice4Choice.org
• Kochanie adds Planned Parenthood Affiliates
  and NOW PACS

Last week Chelsea Girl of Pretty Dumb Things compellingly constructed a case for the hotts for Chewbacca.

I am not a wild, rabid Star Wars fanatic, not that there's anything wrong with that. I don't own any memorabilia. I haven't even seen episodes 2 and 3, despite the rumor that there is a whole planet of Wookiees in one of them. (I looked at Ernie's watch four minutes into Episode 1: A New Hope, rolled my eyes, gritted my teeth, and suffered through the remaining seventeen hours.) I'm also not a plushie, or plushophile, though I admit I read the March 2001 Vanity Fair article about them with an avid pleasure.

I am, however, a victim to Chewbacca's animal magnetism. Sure, I can appreciate Luke Skywalker's boyish good looks. And I can certainly find the fire in Han Solo's rough-and-tumble masculinity. But frankly, if I'm going to indulge my fantasy, and I am, I want to be wound tight in Chewie's musky fur.

The rest of her reasons are here.

On Friday Mu Ling of The pavilion posts a list of fictional characters she's in love with, and coins an unfortunate acronym.

I'm in Love with These Fictional Characters
One might even say, FCILF, but I am not that one.

Find the actual list here.

Me? I get kind of squicked by the idea of romance with fictional characters of any species (does this make me a fictionist?) If I were to swing that way, though, I think a lot of the moms in comic strips are pretty intriguing. I'm not sure what the deal is... what zeitgeist they're embodying... but ever notice they tend to be sharp-witted, healthy and fit but not extravagantly proportioned, and -- if they're stay-at-home there's an intention to resume their careers when their children reach school age?

Anyway, in no particular order I really drawn to

- Rose Gumbo of Rose is Rose, a former serious-biker-mamma who clearly struggles with a self-imposed "exile" to domesticity. Quirky bonus: she constantly resists pressure from her husband to gain weight in order to conform to his roly-poly fetish. Not to knock him at all, at all. He's a bit of a doofus but he's wonderfully oblivious to the faults she constantly finds in herself.

- The mom from Family Circus. Yeah, yeah, get over it. As a stay-at-home dad, even after the kids have gone back to school, I'm aware that the life of the average stay-at-home parent is more complex than it seems.

- The now mostly-retired professor Juliette Burber of 9 Chickweed Lane. She's something else. Totally confident, totally capable, suffers no fool gladly if she suffers at all, aggravated when men can't keep up with her either intellectually or sensually. That plus she was daft enough to tackle a second career as a dairy farmer when her daughter moved out.

Feel free to chime in with your own cross-media crushes.

[Kochanie is a frequent commenter here and she's got a lot of great ideas. Yesterday she gave me a suggestion that was so well-formed I would have felt bad taking credit for it so I'm going to promote it to its own "guest blogging" post. I haven't asked her permission to do so, and she may kill me for it, but promoting comments is an honored tradition in blogging so I'm going for it. --fl]

Figleaf,

In your response to AAG's comment, you said that you are sometimes shy and sometimes bold. If you still wish to explore gender stereotypes, I think that shyness among men and boys would be a good topic.

When a man is shy about initiating a sexual advance, a woman can very easily misinterpret this as a lack of interest in her because she is too aggressive, or unappealing. Many relationships that barely started have met an untimely death because the woman assumed that ALL men were sexually bold, and a woman had to be VERY unattractive if a man did not hit upon her.

Similarly, a man may have walked away from a woman who was very attracted to him, because he felt shy, but was too embarassed to admit that shyness even to himself. Easier to say that the former girlfriend was too sexually aggressive.

Now there definitely are mismatches between low and high libido partners, as you and other bloggers have discussed. But in addition to differences in libido (which can vary for the same person throughout his/her lifetime), are we also complicating this compatibility issue by our assumptions about how normal men and women should behave sexually?

If you and your readers have already discussed this, just refer me to that post. You have almost 700 posts, and while I have read quite a few, I have not read all. Thank you.

Oh man you need to start your own blog, Kochanie. I'm so glad to have you here and I definitely love this idea -- it's all over my bugaboos about how stereotpe-based expectations torpedo us -- but it would feel like poaching if I borrowed it.

You've raised some really good points.

Usually when I think about assumptions women make about men I'm still reacting to the oft-repeated assertion that men will never turn down an opportunity to get laid... even if our partner's unwilling, even if our partner is unconscious, even if our partner is actually a horse, sheep, or goat. In other words, I've often been so worried that a potential partner thinks I want her only for her body that I may have left her thinking I didn't want her at all!

The irony of it all is that when I was small my family's favorite album was "My Fair Lady" and I know the words of Liza Dolittle's complaint by heart:

Don't talk of stars
Burning above;
If you're in love,
Show me!

Tell me no dreams
Filled with desire.
If you're on fire,
Show me!

Here we are together in the middle of the night!
Don't talk of spring! Just hold me tight!
Anyone who's ever been in love'll tell you that
This is no time for a chat!

Haven't your lips
Longed for my touch?
Don't say how much,
Show me!

Show me!

Don't talk of love
lasting through time.
Make me no undying vow.
Show me now!

Sing me no song!
Read me no rhyme!
Don't waste my time,
Show me!

Don't talk of June,
Don't talk of fall!
Don't talk at all!
Show me!

Never do I ever want to hear another word.
There isn't one I haven't heard.
Here we are together in what ought to be a dream;
Day one more word and I'll scream!

Haven't your arms
Hungered for mine?
Please don't "expl'ine,"
Show me!

Show me!

Don't wait until
wrinkles and lines
Pop out all over my brow,
Show me now!

DOH! I knew it, literally, by heart and still spent much of my life mantled and cumbered in Sensitive New-Age Guy straight-jackets. Talk about living proof that knowledge alone does not equal power? :-)

One of the best things about blogging is the opportunity to learn from my mistakes. Thanks for another hard but rewarding lesson, Kochanie.

[Everyone, of course, is invited to chime in here in comments or on your own blogs about mismatches not in libido but in boldness and shyness.]

Chelsea Girl gets 'emm. DoctorMama gets 'em. Google's new blog search tool turns up another 1,900 or so people who get 'em or otherwise deal with 'em.

I've even gotten them (though neither I nor my partner have one for a while.) Chances are extremely good you've gotten them too.

The first time I ever connected UTIs with sex was while walking along a wintery windswept beach with a fetching young woman given to June-Cleaver jumpers and high-heeled knee-high boots. I was madly in love, she was too, and since we were each newly and madly in love with other people we talked about sex instead of having it. She mentioned (the third or fourth time she disappeared behind a rock to pee) that she had a UTI because she and her new partner had just started fucking like bunnies (her term.) She said her doctor called it "honeymoon syndrome" because it happens so often to women who've recently begun having sex with someone new (thus the "honeymoon" designation) or after an extended abstinence (such as, for instance, recovering from the last one.)

I've heard a number of more and less substantiated ways to avoid UTIs, from peeing immediately after intercourse to avoiding front-entry positions to both partners shaving to cranberry juice to IV antibiotics but I have no idea if or how well they work. Since for some people it's enough of a scourge that they become reluctant to resume intercourse it seems like a worthwhile question to pursue.

Some wonderful sex-advice bloggers visit here, as do any number of experienced monogamous, polyamorous, and abstinent sex bloggers. Rather than asking for answers here where they'd just be buried in comments to a single post thought I'd make this a guest-blogging topic and invite you to answer in your own blogs where people can more easily find it.

[The final photo from my Fashion Question: Belt or No Belt?" series on Flickr.]

For reasons as yet unexplained, the blog-host IndecentBlogging.com has gone dark, leaving quite a few people in a no-archives-no-thing lurch. Time for the rest of us to send out virtual rescue parties to find currently-lost ID bloggers who are starting new blogs elsewhere and help them re-establish their links.

As I find relocated ID bloggers I'll post their names and new URLs here. If you're a relocated ID blogger let me know either in comments or by email and I'll certainly post those too. And, of course, if you're a loyal reader and you let me know in comments where someone you're fond of has wound up I'll post that here as well.

If others do the same then Google and other search engines will also start picking it up and that too will help readers reconnect with their favorite bloggers.

---

One of them is Cookiebush, who's making a clean start at http://cookiebush.blogspot.com/. (Cookie, I'll update you in my blogroll as soon as soon as I return from vacation.)

Update: Twiddlybits has checked in to say she'll be back online with a new host but the same old URL in fairly short order. Keep your eyes peeled.

Easily Aroused has relocated: http://www.easilyaroused.co.uk

So has Easily Aroused

Anna has resurfaced at My not so secret self

Red Sneakers Diary is back online too, and she's the one who thoughtfully provided new links to Anna and Easily Aroused.

Cool! I just found She Kinky who, though not an ID blogger, had also recently vanished from her old site.

DirtyBoy's Dirty Thoughts has found a new home on BlogSpot.

Know of any others? Let me know.

This is about different reasons for having sex, including an oft-overlooked but critical one. An introductory joke first, though:

The Smiths had no children and decided to use a proxy father to start their family. On the day the proxy father was to arrive, Mr. Smith kissed his wife and said, "I'm off. The man should be here soon." Half an hour later, just by chance, a door-to-door baby photographer rang the doorbell, hoping to make a sale. "Good morning, madam. You don't know me but I've come to...."

"Oh, no need to explain. I've been expecting you," Mrs. Smith cut in.

"Really ?" the photographer asked. "Well, good! I've made a specialty of babies."

"That's what my husband and I had hoped. Please come in and have a seat. Just where do we start?" asked Mrs. Smith, blushing.

"Leave everything to me. I usually try two in the bathtub, one on the couch and perhaps a couple on the bed. Sometimes the living room floor is fun too; you can really spread out."

"Bathtub, living room floor? No wonder it didn't work for Harry and me."

"Well, madam, none of us can guarantee a good one every time. But if we try several different positions and I shoot from six or seven angles, I'm sure you'll be pleased with the results."

"I hope we can get this over with quickly," gasped Mrs. Smith.

"Madam, in my line of work, a man must take his time. I'd love to be in and out in five minutes, but you'd be disappointed with that, I'm sure."

"Don't I know!" Mrs. Smith exclaimed. The photographer opened his briefcase and pulled out a portfolio of his baby pictures. "This was done on the top of a bus in downtown London."

"Oh my god!!", Mrs. Smith exclaimed, tugging at her handkerchief.

"And these twins turned out exceptionally well when you consider their mother was so difficult to work with." The photographer handed Mrs. Smith the picture.

"She was difficult ?" asked Mrs. Smith.

"Yes, I'm afraid so. I finally had to take her to Hyde Park to get the job done right. People were crowding around four and five deep, pushing to get a good look."

"Four and five deep?" asked Mrs. Smith, eyes widened in amazement.

"Yes", the photographer said. "And for more than three hours too. The mother was constantly squealing and yelling. I could hardly concentrate. Then darkness approached and I began to rush my shots. Finally, when the squirrels began nibbling on my equipment, I just packed it all in." Mrs. Smith leaned forward.

"You mean they actually chewed on your, eh......equipment ?"

"That's right. Well madam, if you're ready, I'll set up my tripod so that we can get to work."

"Tripod??", Mrs. Smith looked extremely worried now.

"Oh yes, I have to use a tripod to rest my Canon on. It's much too big for me to hold while I'm getting ready for action. Madam ? Madam?..... Good Lord, she's fainted!"

It might be a bit of a stretch, but the funny thing about this joke is the startling overlap between sex for recreation and sex for procreation. Sometimes we forget about that second reason for sex. (Woo, hoo, is that ever an overblown assumption that only a 1) a man who 2) has had a vasectomy for all but three years of his adult life could make! When my partner and I decided it was time to have children it took six hours of surgery on my tender bits, and a lot of crossed fingers. Ten days after our final child was born it took only another fifteen minutes in an outpatient clinic to undo all that the first doctor's hard work.) But I digress.

I should have said "sometimes we forget that for most animals, and even most primates, sex is strictly about reproduction. I think we're just lucky.

Anyway, this guest-blogging question is about sex the combination. A lot of people know (or feel certain) about the exact time they conceived children. I remember both times vividly.

The first time was in a little guest house in a nearly deserted resort in a literally enchanted valley. It was broad daylight, the doors and windows were open, exotic birds were singing in the tropical foliage outside, and we started out lying around naked and (unusual for us at the time) touching our own bodies and then touching each other the same way before we finally made a baby in a very delightful way. My partner took a picture of me leaning against the porch railing maybe half an hour later. At the time neither of us had any idea that she'd taken a picture of a new father instead of just another dorky guy with messy hair.

The next time, also in the middle of the day, my partner just grabbed me, tossed me on the bed (also unusual for her) and said "Ok, figleaf, this is it." Approximately nine months after that equally memorable interlude out popped nine and a half pounds of beautiful new citizen. And as I mentioned, ten days later I deliberately went back to shooting blanks.

I gotta say that other than those two times sex for procreation wasn't really any different that sex for recreation. (Sex while fertile certainly doesn't seem any different than sex while sterile.)

But what's your experience, if experience you have?

As always you're welcome to post your answers in comments, but I'd rather you answered in your own blogs so your regular readers can see it, but leave a note in my comments so I can find your post when I get back.

Another old joke I hadn't heard before

A vacationing penguin is driving through Arizona when he notices that
the oil-pressure light is on. He gets out to look and sees oil
dripping out of the motor. He drives to the nearest town and stops at
the first gas station.

After dropping the car off, the penguin goes for a walk around town.
He sees an ice-cream shop and, being a penguin in Arizona, decides
that something cold would really hit the spot. He gets a big bowl of
vanilla ice cream and sits down to eat. Having no hands, he makes a
real mess trying to eat with his little flippers.

After finishing his ice cream, he goes back to the gas station and
asks the mechanic if he's found the problem. The mechanic looks up
and says, "It looks like you blew a seal."

"No, no," the penguin replies, "It's just ice cream."

The other day I asked about people's first encounter with artificial lubricants. Today's guest-blogging question is similar: What do you remember about the first time you gave and/or received oral sex?

---

My first partner was definitely a good girl but also very curious about sex. The good girl part meant she didn't want me touching her naked body. Her curiosity led her to the following compromise: if she wore pantyhose with nothing underneath it didn't count. By the time she finally ditched the panty hose I was already extremely familiar with her territory but oh, the difference real flesh made! (Oh, and I haven't cared pantyhose since.)

As always you're welcome to post your answers in comments, but I'd rather you answered in your own blogs so your regular readers can see it, but leave a note in my comments so I can find your post when I get back.

Last week, porn photographer Donovan Phillips of Donny's Ramblings (caution, link is not work safe) mentioned two reasons why he doesn't like to photograph hard-core male/female porn. One reason is excellent:

The first, and most important reason is because I deal with truly amateur models. These girls have had no experience posing nude prior to meeting me. Getting naked alone is a big step for them, nevermind having some guy nailin' 'em on video. No matter what porn videos want you to think, a new model isn't going to go home feeling good about having some strange guy cum on her face! She just isn't. She's going to regret shooting the scene the second she leaves my house. I've paired models up with guys they don't know in the past, so I really know what I'm talking about.

That makes a lot of sense on multiple levels, and on another day I would write an entire post on that point. I'm out of town as this goes online, though, and if we ever discuss ethics in porn I want to be around to hear about it. (For the record, while I don't know very many pornographers, the ones I'm familiar with -- Abby Winters, Donovan Phillips, Tony Comstock, and a few other photographers and models -- seem to be very careful about maintaining their integrity.)

But like I say, that's a discussion for another day. I'd rather talk about Donovan's other reason:

There's a reason LA uses the same male models over and over again: once a guy has proven he can get hard on camera he's a gold mine! For some reason the majority of amateur guys have this mental block that makes their dick shrivel once a camera is pointed at them.

So the guest-blogging question here is: Is this really a problem?

Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no doubt that most men, particularly amateurs, are going to have a terrible time getting an erection with lights, cameras, and relative strangers all around him. And if you're a pornographer on a schedule I can see how that might be frustrating if you're trying to photograph what everyone expects.

But, really. I know a number of women who think coaxing an (or another) erection out of a partner is pretty exciting. Conventional porn, in text, stills, and video is awash in seduction scenes. Usually it's the man seducing the woman. Less often the woman seduces the man, but generally it doesn't take much seducing and generally after that initial contact the man's taking charge again.

Does anyone besides me think it would be interesting to take that seduction a little further and really let her take charge, to go ahead and show what's evidently pretty common off-set even in professional porn? Or do you prefer the standard "Johnny's ready" scenarios we've learned to expect?

As always you're welcome to post your answers in comments, but I'd rather you answered in your own blogs so your regular readers can see it, but leave a note in my comments so I can find your post when I get back.

Here's how my favorite dirty joke of all time begins:

What happened to the couple that couldn't tell the difference between Vaseline and window putty?

disclaimer: yes, yes, Vaseline is no longer a popular lubricant and for good reasons, but this is an old joke.

I'll get to the anwer in just a second but first I'd like to introduce my next "open-source" guest-blogging question, this time about sex and lubricants. When was your first encounter with a 3rd-party sex lubricant like AstroGlide, K-Y jelly, petroleum jelly, etc. either by yourself or with a partner? Do you use them regularly? If so which do you prefer, and how?

The answer to the joke, by the way:

Their windows fell out.

Until recently I haven't have much experience with lubes other than bodily secretions. Butter once for anal sex with a long-term partner, vaseline for an impromptu B&D anal play that didn't involve intercourse, very infrequent use of AstroGlide or Probe when a partner wasn't lubricating enough (allergy medication seems to be a frequent culprit), and, recently, I figured out it can be a lovely addition to masturbation -- slow-learner indeed.

The most erotic impromptu lubricant (if you want to call it that) I've ever heard of is ripe, sun-hot, fresh-picked peaches. You want it to be ripe enough that you can reach in through the skin and remove the pit with your fingers. Peach juice dripping everywhere isn't supposed to be a side-effect, by the way, but a sensual delight. Then grind the soft inner flesh of the peach over or around appropriate parts of your lover and rub, lick, and slurp till their eyes roll. (Insert standard caveats about sugary materials here, but if you do it right you'll both need a warm, languid bath or shower afterwards anyway.)

As always you're welcome to post your answers in comments, but I'd rather you answered in your own blogs so your regular readers can see it, but leave a note in my comments so I can find your post when I get back.

One of my favorite jokes:

A speaker is addressing the audience at a marital relations class about frequency of sex. "Different couple have different needs so frequency of sex can vary considerably. May I have a show of hand for those who have sex every day?"

A fair number of hands are raised and the speaker says "Very good! Now how many have sex once a week?" Another, slightly larger set of hands appear. "Once a month?" A sprinkling of hands. "And finally, how about once a year?"

A small man in the back of the room not only raises his hand but starts jumping up and down shouting with a big smile, "Yes, me, me!"

Taken aback the speaker says "Sir, most people think once a year isn't nearly often enough. How can you be so enthusiastic about having sex only once a year?"

The man, still jumping and smiling says, "But tonight's the night!"

Which leads to my first guest-blogging question: In the course of your relationship how often do you have sex with your primary partner? How closely matched are your desires for sex? If you're on different schedules, how does the difference affect your relationship (if it affects it at all?)

You're welcome to post your answers in comments, but I'd rather you answered in your own blogs so your regular readers can see it, but leave a note in my comments so I can find your post when I get back.

Ok, so I'm going to be out of town for a couple of weeks on a very much needed (if not always deserved) vacation with family and friends.

If I was more organized and less shy I'd have arranged to have a guest blogger. Instead I'm going to do the following three things:

• Invite everyone to guest blog on my behalf. I'll be placing post-dated topic questions that'll show up every couple of days. If they're of interest, and if you're so inclined, feel respond either on your blog or here in the comment sections.
• Post-date some other (one hopes) interesting links, rants, or photos, again to pop up every couple of days
• Open my comments, which only makes sense since I won't be around to moderate. (Much. I will dial in occasionally when I'm near a phone and not in the wilderness area we're headed for.)

About that last point. Opening up the comments means that between all the witty, sexy, relevant, and intelligent comments I usually receive you'll also see varying amounts of dull, sexless, irrelevant, and (especially) inintelligent comment spam -- generally for casinos. Apologies in advance and I'll delete it all when I return.