Home

Techniques

"Vajazzled" Vulvas: Privilege Rorschach Test?

Wed, 2010-03-10 20:33 — figleaf

Lisa of Sociological Images succinctly describes the concept behind “vajazzling.”

In any case, the video below, in which a woman documents the vajazzling of her “vagina,” reveals that the term refers to the placing of a field of tiny crystals where your public hair would be. So, first you essentially replace your pubic hair with shiny objects.

See the video, and read Lisa’s text in context, here.

Succinctly but not completely. That should read shiny, sharp cut-glass crystal objects! Which at the very, very least would tend to limit one’s partner’s interest in face-to-face intercourse. And assuming men are being honest who say they don’t want pubic hair in their mouths ought to be just even more balky about chipping their molars on Swarovski crystals.

My guess is that the hair-in-the-mouth thing is a red herring. As Holly says, if men are so all-fired indiscriminating and sex-crazed they sure are a demandingly picky bunch. And nothing says demanding like “scrape off your pubic hair with a razor, or pull it out with hot, sticky wax,” I’m guessing saying “and encrust it with jewels instead” just seems extra special.

My second guess, though, is that it’s scarcely any of my business how an intimate partner chooses to groom herself and no business at all of mine how anyone else goes about it. Part of privilege would be assuming people who get themselves vajazzled are interested in men’s opinion in the first place.

Birthday Confessions of a Chocolate Mainliner

Sun, 2010-03-07 18:30 — figleaf

So over the decades I’ve slowly graduated from Hershey’s-style milk chocolate to progressively stronger and stronger, darker and darker kinds.

Towards the end of last year a local boutique chocolatier started making some (very tasty) 91% varietal chocolates that were… pretty darn good.

So about two weeks ago I was out of all the good stuff. And I wondered to myself…

How would plain old Baker’s unsweetened taste?

Turns out it’s pretty good.

Awfully strong in the theobromine department, so you can’t eat that much without getting “overcaffeinated.” But minus all the cheap sugars and flavorings and such that goes into cheap sweetened chocolates it’s pretty darn good.

I realize it’s taken (inadvertent) years to get to this point so I don’t recommend jumping into it. And I seriously don’t recommend giving it, or any other 100% chocolate, as a gift to anyone else.

Note: I’m not about to give up half-and-half cream in my coffee.

Figleaf's Ultimate Definitions of Good and Bad Sex

Sat, 2010-03-06 16:28 — figleaf

It’s good sex if you feel as good or better about yourself and your partner(s) as you did before.

It’s bad sex if you feel bad or worse about yourself and your partner(s) after than you did before.

And that’s it. Orgasm count isn’t part of it. The specific type of relationship isn’t part of it. Whether it’s for or not for reproduction only isn’t part of it. Neither is age, or gender, or interest or orientation. Neither is skill nor experience. Nor what you actually do, or could do, or won’t do.

So those are very high-level definitions. And you can choose different ones. But that’s what I mean when I use those terms.

(Note: I’m aware that the spirit of the definitions could be lawyered or otherwise subverted, but then so can, say, the Geneva Conventions Against Torture. And I briefly considered changing them to the form “It’s good sex if you and your partner(s) feel…” But that introduces its own complexities and besides, no amount of qualifications will stop someone sufficiently determined to violate their spirit.)

Mia of Sexpertise on Fellatio and Vegetarianism

Thu, 2010-03-04 12:21 — figleaf

Mia of the interesting and, I think, fairly new Sexpertise website addresses a fascinating question: should vegetarians swallow semen?

...semen is a product of an animal (like an egg), but not the flesh of an animal (like meat) and not a substance whose production causes cruelty to animals (unlike the miserable dairy cows in PETA commercials, I have a feeling your semen was harvested with your enthusiastic consent). It contains glandular fluid and single cells, also known as sperm. Depending on your girlfriend’s reasons for being vegetarian, it is possible that she could logically conclude that semen is off-limits. Or, maybe she just doesn’t like it.

Read the quote in context here.

The question was asked by a young man who seems to be clear that some people don’t like to swallow, and doesn’t mind that his partner doesn’t swallow his. He’s just intrigued by the reason.

I know I’m hopelessly out of date on the, er, ins and outs of vegetarianism but in addition to the ethical-vegetarian reasons Mia reminds us of there are, among other major schools of though, health-minded vegetarians who are wary of eating animals because, being higher on the food chain, they can carry higher loads of accumulated metals and other toxins plus they can be exposed to artificial hormones, environmental hormone precursors, and anti-biotics.

In other words she could be declining to swallow not so much because she’s a vegetarian per se but because he, like pretty much every other human being on the planet any more, isn’t organic.

Something to think about.

Lest this sound silly or esoteric (ok, worrying that a partner’s semen isn’t vegetarian/organic is least a little silly) there’s considerable concern about metals and other toxins in breast milk.

Also lest the question sound silly Mia wisely closes on a serious note:

Since it doesn’t sound as if the actual act of swallowing is a big deal to you, I would suggest getting yourself out of this semantic black hole. Communicate to your girlfriend that you understand and respect her right to decide what goes into her body, whether you agree with her rationale or not. I don’t know if your girlfriend is making excuses, as you say, but if for some reason she feels that simply saying she doesn’t like swallowing isn’t good enough, then you have a communication problem. You can remedy this by showing her that you appreciate her right to make her own choices in the bedroom, and that you care about her enjoyment and comfort more than you care about this disagreement.

Sound advice in all events.

How About Step One: Admitting They're Powerless Over Their Addiction to Demonizing Sex?

Tue, 2010-03-02 22:53 — figleaf

Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon, who was writing mainly about the usual moronic assumptions pop evolutionary psychologists are making out of the Tiger Woods imbroglio has a wonderfully pithy (and earthy) takedown of the “sex addiction” meme. (Emphasis mine.)

I don’t like the framework around “sex addiction” not because I think that every man is a natural dog who will fuck every woman he sees if given the chance, and that women are fools to expect otherwise (or have the duty to milk our men 3-5 times a day to stop him—-most men wouldn’t want that, either).  I don’t like it because the framework demonizes sex itself, even as those who push it deny that.  Do I think people act out with sex?  Sure, but it’s usually in service of some other neurotic need.  Call Tiger Woods a “sex addict” distracts from the more mundane reality.

She said it here.

I’ll note in passing that as usual it’s usually ardent feminists like Amanda who understand that most men are not, in fact, the uncontrollable sperm hydrants of anti-feminist fantasy. Which begs the question of which side really hates men.

I’ll also note that while “sex addiction” is nearly always represented as a male condition at least one counselor (who specializes in men) says it’s about 20% women but the (not trustworthy enough to link to) sources say it’s mostly because women are way less likely to report it or to seek counseling or attend “sexaholics anonymous” meetings. And something called the Sexual Recovery Institute suggests many women may prefer to call themselves “love addicts” instead, though according to SRI’s checklist it all amounts to the same thing. But which might skew reported ratios anyway.

I’ll also note in passing that by belittling conceits such as sex, fishing, or shopping addictions I’m belittling real, actual, biochemical-substance addictions such as alcohol and narcotic addictions. I’m pretty sure literally nothing could be further from the truth.

On the Difference Between Taking Interest and Taking Responsibility For Our Partners' Enjoyment in Bed

Mon, 2010-03-01 12:37 — figleaf

Cinnamonsticks of Christian Nymphos tackles a stealth issue in patriarchy, pedestals, and the no-sex class.

We hear from a lot of women who aren’t satisfied in the bedroom. Some have husbands with a low sex drive. Some have husbands who don’t know how to be good lovers to them. Some have a hard time achieving orgasm. For whatever the reason they are not happily enjoying a fulfilled sex life with their husband.

...

What I want to do today is take the time to specifically focus on and discuss the importance of not transferring our part of the problem to our husbands. What often happens is that if we perceive that our husband is doing something that is keeping us from being sexually satisfied, we become so focused on his contribution to it that we forget that we are actually the ones who are primarily responsible for making sex what we want and need it to be.

She said it here.

One of the limits of traditional gender relations has been that women are given “gatekeeper” rights over only one thing: to open the gate. Everything else is held to be up to the man. Including her satisfaction. Including her disappointment.

As Barbara Eherenreich and Dierdre English, Rachel P. Maines, and others have meticulously documented, society has sometimes gone to extraordinary lengths to insure that women remain as passively dependent on their partners as humanly possible. Even in the sexually “progressive” 1970s the whole “she comes first” movement (endorsed by 2nd-wave feminism and Playboy progressives alike) held men more accountable for their partners’ enjoyment but… no less responsible for it.

In terms of heterosexuality one of the coolest things about the advent of the so-called “third wave” beginning in the 1980s was the then seriously radical idea that sex wasn’t just something that men had. There had been vibrators, yes, but they were still mostly seen (but not shown to partners) as substitutes when men weren’t around or… to “finish the job” after the man had gone to bed or gone home. But starting somewhere in the 1980s women began actively asserting ownership of their enjoyment rather than expecting their partners to provide it for them.

In many circles, both traditional and (perhaps surprisingly) progressive, this shift from women as audience of men’s performance to women as their own agents has gone over poorly. Resisted in a way that, say, tipping hats, opening doors, paying all expenses for dates, or even men leading in ballroom dancing hasn’t been. But the resistance is still an obstacle to parity.

Bottom line is it’s really (really!) important to take an active interest in our partners’ pleasure during sex. Important for men because historically we haven’t been terrifically attentive, and when even when we’ve been attentive we haven’t necessarily been very realistic. And important for women too because historically, if inaccurately, there’s been that assumption that once a partner says “yes” men can handle the rest themselves. But while it’s important for all of our partners to be actively interested in our enjoyment it’s also important that we not hold our partners responsible for our enjoyment either. So good call by Cinnamonsticks.

I Think the Trick Is: On Trying to Tolerate Construction of Gender

Sun, 2010-02-28 19:48 — figleaf

I gotta say I’m less enamored of this whole gender business, as distinct from more tangible qualities like biology, body, identity, and orientation. But people like Bond of Dear Diaspora or Sinclair of Sugarbutch argue passionately and often very well that no, there is such a thing, and what’s wrong with that?

It still gives me hackles. Especially when it sure looks like (as turned up in conversation with a friend today who’s struggling with her relationship with male partner) the gendered female trope of “disappointment” and the gendered male one of “resignation” sure… look awfully similar. Except for the names, of course. And the genders they’re ascribed to.

In fact I think one big clue came today when I was talking with my friend and she asked me how it can be that the person you can be almost sick to death of being different than could have been so rivetingly appealing when you first met. And it occurred to me that that’s one more domain where over time all the stuff you have in common — maybe 99% or more — just cancels out from familiarity, overuse, complacency, and especially confidence and comfort… and therefore take up only a very small percent of effort and energy. Compared to that nagging 1% difference that, because everything else fades figuratively into your literal background that… the difference takes up nearly all your effort and energy. With the result that you’re saying “irreconcilable differences” when externally friends and loved ones can’t imagine what the problem is.

Well. I think it’s the same with gender. A lot. Human beings aren’t 100% alike. (That’s a common but moronic straw-person argument often held up by gender essentialists.) But we are 99% alike. Even when we’re biologically different we’re very often still functionally alike. (Consider for instance that in many parts of the world both sexes squat to pee even though with practice nearly all men and most women can pee perfectly well standing up.)

So like I say, there are very clearly differences between heterosexual cis-gendered biological sexes. But just the fact that I have to add all those qualifications is a reminder of just how small those differences can actually be.

Small differences, however, aren’t the same as no differences. And while I’m not persuaded that the difference is big enough to bring in a whole ‘nother social institution called “gender” to help explain those differences, stereotype those differences, or police those differences when people go “astray” from them I’m willing to accept that they’re there and they might even be unavoidable.

Especially if other people seem to believe they’re there it doesn’t even help if you don’t. Consider that if men look you in the chest instead of the eyes you’re being gendered, like it or not. Consider that if women cross the street rather than walk past you after midnight you’re gendered it doesn’t really matter how long you’ve spent deconstructing gender in yourself.

So…

So I got a big epiphany the other day that it’s not actually gender itself that bugs me. Like Sinclair I feel comfortable wearing pants, for instance, nor am I inclined to skirts. On the other hand a number of bio-women and at least one bio-man who just strongly prefer conventional skirts or dresses.

In fact Sinclair and I are really quite a lot alike. In gender terms we have quite a lot in common! In fact, even though she’s thoroughly and even cheerfully not a man in a lot of ways she’s better at being “masculine” than I am. Or at least more consistently so.

Which gets me to that sticking point again. Because the way gender is constructed it’s “good” when I do some of the gendered things I do because I’m biologically male. But when she does it it’s “bad” because she’s not. Except that, as I just mentioned, she’s really good at it.

So my epiphany was that I’m actually not so much down on gender as I’m really down on the 50/50-split, yin/yang, I’m hairy so you must be hairless, you’re nurturing so I must be aloof, Mars/Venus, everything-about-us-must-be-opposite two-sphere model of gender. I’m seriously impatient with the exclusivity that goes with gender essentialism.

In other words I’m fine with gender… as long as it’s completely independent of sexual biology, or anatomy, or identity, or orientation.

Finding the Clitoris is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

Tue, 2010-02-23 19:41 — figleaf

Froth of harshly indicts contemporary sex education

For five years I was given “sex education”. It mostly consisted of periods and condoms. It didn’t talk about consent. It didn’t talk about the actual mechanics of sex, about arousal and lubrication and oscillation. It didn’t tell me a single thing about relationships and it didn’t tell me I had a clitoris.

...

That makes me angry. What makes me even angrier is the certainty that there are other girls like me, being “educated” in sex by their schools and their local health providers, and given so little information about their bodies that only luck and stubbornness will ever give them the ability to have orgasms.
That makes me furious.

Read the rest (which is equally well-said) here.

Froth titles her post “Sex Education, or, What Boys Will Want From You,” which is pretty much the no-sex class construction you’d expect from a curriculum based on 1950s notions of gendered (coughwomen’scough) responsibility… and gendered (coughmen’scough) irresponsibility… plus denial, squeamishness about enjoyment, the high premium placed on womens’ utter inexperience, and the blunt pragmatics of the undesirability to parents and teachers of teen pregnancy.

That boys would have no idea what they’d want from girls, except the sports-analogy affirmation that comes with “scoring” was never considered either, of course. With the result that in addition to not telling women about their clitorises or that there are myriad ways to effectively have shared, parallel, or individual orgasms, the curricula also rarely covers ways boys can manage their own orgasms, to communicate their own wants and needs and vulnerabilities, or, for that matter, to say no when they feel pressured to “perform.”

It’s just taken for granted that enjoyable for boys is “easy,” even automatic, even unavoidable. So don’t bother teaching them anything. And that girls are “hard” so… again don’t bother!

For nearly four years the most popular post at Real Adult Sex, by far, has been How to find someone’s clitoris (if you don’t already know). As Froth points out, for men and women both that’s just the tip of the ignorance iceberg.

What’s the one thing you really wish had been covered in your sex education classes? Assuming you had classes at all?

Post-Vacation Observations About Blog and Facial-Hair Maintenance

Tue, 2010-02-23 13:07 — figleaf

Quick note: I’m finally back from vacation, plus various other strong distractions, and I’ve finally had time to fix the blog. It should operate quite a bit faster. I’ll be taking a couple of steps to limit the hordes of comment spam I was getting before, including requiring comment previews again (sorry) and, if necessary, closing comments in older posts. If you notice other problems please let me know. Hopefully in comments. Finally, I’ve got a hella backlog of emails for the last two weeks or so. I’ll be trying to catch up this week.

The question for the Wise Guys advice feature on Em & Lo last week was says

What is the appeal (or not) of a woman who’s completely bare down there?

Read three answers from the Wise Guys, and at least 55 other answers in comments, here.

Yes, yes, I’ve already beaten the point to death but for immediately personal reasons related to my having not shaved while on vacation I’m going to give it one more whack.

I’m sitting here contemplating a rare but very irritated razor-burn rash under my chin, thanks in part to a razor blade I forgot to change, thanks in even more part to the fact that I had about a week’s worth of stubble and it’s really hard to see under my chin when I shave (always in the shower) and the surfaces are really hard to navigate a razor around safely anyway. Anyway, the irritated skin and hair follicles remind me once again how shaving is unnatural no matter who does it. Or where.

That said, my bare face is definitely more sensitive when my partner touches me there. It’s definitely easier to keep my face clean when shave regularly. I should also say that most of my partners have preferred to kissing and being kissed without a beard rather than with one. Personally I think I just tend to look better clean-shaven than with a beard or mustache. And of course some employers have been very strict about how my head and facial hair should be groomed.

Even without considering visual or partner or public preferences I think most people shave various parts of their bodies for the same reason I shave mine: occasional razor burn notwithstanding it’s more practical and the sensations are nicer for me.

But yikes! If you’re going to shave anything it’s a very good idea to keep your $#*@ razor blades sharp.

Codpieces Mean You Can Never Be Sure He's Actually Happy to See You

Mon, 2010-02-15 21:18 — figleaf

Here’s a little food for though on a Kristina-Lloyd “Man Candy Monday” on her obviously NSFW Erotica Coverwatch blog. Mark Potter of Reuters “Oddly Enough” column comes up with an odd headline for an even odder product.

Men risk anticlimax with anatomy-boosting pants
LONDON
Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:56pm EST

LONDON (Reuters) – Hundreds of British men are risking a Valentine’s Day anticlimax for their partners by stocking up on anatomy-boosting underpants ahead of the most romantic weekend of the year.

Oddly Enough

British department store group Debenhams said Thursday it had seen a 76 percent surge in online sales of the 18 pounds-a-pair ($28) underwear in the past week.

The pants work by using a lift and hold feature at the front, like a male version of the cleavage-boosting Wonderbra.

“The briefs mean that no man ever needs to feel inadequate again on the most passionate day of the social calendar,” said Rob Faucherand, head of men’s accessories buying at Debenhams.

“However we can’t be held responsible for what happens once the pants come off,” he added.

(Reporting by Mark Potter)

Read all about it here.

Potter’s post doesn’t mention it but a bit of Googling suggests it’s a line of push-up underwear from an unknown-to-me designer, Gregg Homme. Here’s a link to a safe-for-work Google search page for Homme’s “Maximizer Briefs” full of links to mostly-mainstream but visually not-as-safe pages.

A few thoughts:

  • Whereas there’s a tendency to deplore makers of Wonderbras or thongs who’s products emphasize or “enhance” stereotypical women’s physical attributes it’s more common to deride makers of of products that similarly enhance stereotypical male attributes. Manties, pectoral implants, hair implants, heel lifts, and now these “maximizer briefs” all collide, violently, with the bogus Rule #2. By convention (but not in fact, as Lloyd, Amanda Marcotte, and several billion other women would tell men if they bothered to ask) men’s worthiness or ability to act or “provide” is the only valid measure of their attractiveness. And by convention the Smallville character Lana Lang was supposed to be unmoved by the Clark Kent character’s physical beauty, while on the other hand According to Jim’s Cheryl character was supposed to be impressed by Jim’s… um… well, not his looks. Consequently padding one’s crotch isn’t just a mark of vanity, it must be a mark of misplaced priorities as well.
  • What, exactly, the heck is the idea behind the sentiment that men’s padded pants will lead inevitably to disappointment or even “anticlimax” when the pants are removed? Once again there’s a presumption that men’s appearance must reflect utility (e.g. signaling wealth, taste, age, or health) rather than decor.
  • And not to turn around a common gender trope or anything, but aren’t Potter and Faucherand still presuming that men are more likely than women to dress for potential partners than than, say, for themselves or to signal competitive status or intent to each other?
  • That said, there’s often an implicit assumption that prominently displaying one’s “package” is interesting only to men. See, for instance, women’s frequent snarks about online dating sites looking like “mushroom farms” because so many men post penis photo. On the other hand, while it’s rarely acknowledged see also research suggesting women are more likely to check out men’s crotches and, just as unexpectedly, men first check faces. So… I dunno.
  • Final point: Potter and Faucherand are men, and at least statistically speaking anyway they’re probably straight. And so, also statistically speaking, they may not be the best people to ask why or whether anyone would be disappointed when a man in what amounts to a subtle codpiece undresses. For instance to the best of my knowledge, it’s mostly men who grouse about the “hot chicks with douchebags“ phenomena, and I’m dead confident that sooner or later they’ll feature someone who, though not visually appealing to men, will end up being mocked for… still having a “hot” girlfriend.

The funny thing, by the way, is that I initially clicked on the bare headline I thought the article would be a warning about health consequences of squeezing one’s genital up and out that way. Sort of like the ones about bicycle seats causing numbness or impotence. If the things catch on (or I should say catch on again) we can probably look forward to those kinds of warnings.

Syndicate content