anal sex

They Might Wish "Yes Means Anal" But Not As Much As They Hope Yes Really Means No

Mon, 2010-10-18 10:58

Lisa of Sociological Images produces what I think is a particularly disturbing affirmation of Rule #1 of the bogus Two Rules of Desire

Lest you think that rape culture is confined to simply excellent institutions of higher education, Salon reports that Yale students pledging the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity were marched by women’s dorms marching “no means yes, yes means anal.”

Source: Lisa at Sociological Images.

Remember the paradox that

a) regardless of actual biological horniness men are indoctrinated to believe that sex is a way of “scoring” self-worth, but also
b) in order for those “scores” to be meaningful they have to be hard-won

If men were really only unslakably horny then slut-shaming would be a 100% alien concept. But we’re not just horny! (In fact, contrary to myth and indoctrination we’re also pretty easily slaked!)

Instead it works like this…

Rule of Desire #2 holds that it is simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for a man to be sexually desired. Thus for a man to “get” sex there has to be something else about him that “makes” a woman agree to have sex with him. That something can be money, a car, power, status, a heroic act, a lifetime agreement to “love, cherish” and support her financially, or even just a bunch of flowers plus paying for dinner and the movie. But one way or another men have indoctrinated each other to believe that having heterosexual sex means we’re special.

Which brings us to Rule of Desire #1: It is simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for a woman to have sexual desire. Without Rule #1 heterosexual sex wouldn’t make a man special at all! Which means that a woman with ordinary sexual desire would be a catastrophe!

Over the last half century the proposition that women just don’t like sex has become harder and harder to sustain — as women continue to gain economic, social, educational, and political freedom of choice it becomes more and more likely that “no” doesn’t mean “I dare not.” (In the unlikely event it never did.) Instead these days no just means no, not now and not with you. While yes in turn means yes I’d like to have sex too instead of “you’re so awesome I can’t say no.” Tough row to hoe if you think sex makes you feel special.

Which brings us to the other charming side of the Yalie’s little diptych: if sex is supposed to make you special, and yes disappointingly means only yes, you can still dig a little deeper for that all important “no.” Which is where “yes means anal” comes in. Anal intercourse, of course, is a rather ordinary form of sex enjoyably practiced by tens or hundreds of millions of people over the course of eons. But it has been stygmatized. It can be unhygienic. And when not done well it can be painful for the recipient. But best of all it’s another taboo thing that a “good” girl might give that all-important no to. Unless, once again, her partner is really special.

Charming little exercise in self-defeat we’ve got going there, guys.

Cory Silverberg On Science Reporting, Research Interpretation, and Sexual Ethics... Oh and Lube For Anal Sex

Sun, 2010-06-06 15:09

Cory Silverberg of Sexuality.About.Com has a genuinely wonderful, thoughtful, and informative post up this week. The nominal topic is about sex of course, anal sex generally, and lubrication used during anal intercourse in particular. While I’m not going to call any of that part superficial (it’s informative, relevant, thoughtful, and positive in both the attitude- and the sex- senses) what really draws my attention, and makes me like Silverberg very much, is his wonderful sense of journalistic, scientific, public-health, and (most important, considering the topic) sexual/erotic ethics.

But more about that in a moment. The subject at hand is a pair of studies measuring the role popular sex lubricants play in tissue damage and STI transmission during penile/anal intercourse. If you were to just skim the headline/teaser versions of the story you’d conclude that it’s risky to use lube when having anal intercourse.

Perhaps because he’s comfortable enough talking about sex that he doesn’t have the distraction of squeezing his knees together and giggling, and perhaps because he’s just a darn good science reporter, Silverberg explains what it means, what it doesn’t, some good takeaways, and (my favorite) some nice analysis of the pitfalls of over-interpreting individual study results.

Anyway, here’s Silverberg

Taken together, these two papers seem to be suggesting that using lubricants, or at least some kinds of lubricants, might actually be a bad idea when you’re on the receiving end of anal intercourse. And if you listen to the press conference that followed the presentation of the data, it sounds like at least some of the researchers are comfortable interpreting this very early data with some significance.

But don’t put away that lube bottle just yet (and probably you won’t be putting it away ever). Remember that collecting data, interpreting it, and reporting on it are three very different activities. While some blog posts have suggested this is radical news, consider the fact that all of the reporting from the researchers themselves and from IRMA makes it clear that this is very preliminary research, and should be interpreted as such.

He said it here.

So far so good. Here’s a great caveat for assessing not just sex-related research but almost any-related research.

Risk is never absolute and it never exists in a vacuum. The clinical study seems to suggest that using lubricant increases risk of getting an anal STD. But it doesn’t consider the risk of infection without lubricant. Sex educators have said for years that lubricant makes anal sex safer because it reduces friction and tearing, and therefore reduces the risk of STD transmission. This new data doesn’t contradict that because it doesn’t address it.

So that’s the first cool part: Even if there are some risks to using lube for anal intercourse those same risks are even greater if you don’t!

A scandalous oversight? Not really. The researchers are pretty clear they’re offering preliminary research, not final recommendations.

Another non-scandal that’s… probably more closely related to problems with technical and “folk” use of words like “findings,” “risk,” and even “safety.”

Similarly, the lab study of lubricants, which does seem to draw conclusions that some lubricants may be “safer” than others, needs to be contextualized, lest we forget how slippery the term “safe” is. When a researcher says that a silicone lubricant was found to be safe, what they mean was that it didn’t do the one or two bad things they were looking at. It doesn’t mean that if you use silicone lubricant you will be safe, or even safer, if you don’t also consider other factors.

Cool, eh? They’ve drawn some conclusions related to very specific questions they were trying to answer: if you’re worried about, say, lube-induced dessication of surface cells in the rectum then yeah, they’re your guys. Those aren’t the only concerns, though, so as Silverberg (and most likely the researchers) you’d want to assess all the risks before making decisions.

And best of all? The paragraph I’m about to quote makes not one but two really cool, really related points: first that to be really helpful such studies need to take sexual enjoyment into account, and second of all he explains why enjoyability is relevant. (Emphasis mine.)

As usual, sexual pleasure isn’t being talked about at all, and this too needs to be addressed in both the conducting and reporting of future research. The end goal of all this research is awareness of risk and behavior change. We aren’t talking about dental hygiene here. We are talking about activities people engage in for a reason, and sexual pleasure is often part of that reason. To talk about anal intercourse and lubricant, particularly to talk about lube as a risk factor, outside of the context of pleasure makes sense only in the lab, only in theory. It doesn’t matter how good the research is, if you want to affect change in people’s lives, you have to speak to us in a way that we can connect with. If the only argument you make for behavior change is numeric, it might scare us for about three minutes, but it’s not likely to help us at all.

Yup. If something feels good enough to want to do in the first place, even good enough to want to do over and over and over, you need to take that into consideration.

All in all a nice, thoughtful post.

Correlating Non-Causation

Sun, 2009-01-18 08:12

Lisa of Sociological Images, reviewing a YouTube-based ad for the Oslo Gay Festival takes a moment to rattle the stereotype that anal intercourse = gay sex.

How do gay men have sex?   Well, they must copy straight people as closely as possible.  Therefore, they must put the penis in an opening “down there.“  Ah ha!  I bet they all have anal sex all the time!  I’m sure some gay men do have anal sex, but some surely don’t, and lots of straight couples do!  I bet a lot of lesbian couples find a way to do it, too.

Read the quote in context here.

That sounds about right. Some percentage of the population, period, (don’t know how big or small but it’s some percentage) is sensorially responsive to enjoying anal stimulation. Some but, like any other random distribution, not all are gay men. But that’s not because gay men are supposed to like anal sex, it’s because gay men are part of the population. And while some of those randomly-distributed anally receptive people are gay men the rest are not. Which is where I rejoin Lisa to point out that the rest aren’t gay men. Bottom line: enjoying anal stimulation doesn’t make you gay.

Similarly some percentage of the population isn’t responsive to anal stimulation. And again I don’t know how big or small a percentage but it’s there. Some of those people are gay too. The rest aren’t. Bottom line: not enjoying anal stimulation does not make you straight.

And then there’s side B, where some percent of the population gets a kick out of playing with their partner. This too is randomly distributed. And this to does not distinguish one as gay or straight… or even male or female.

Aside: the classic illustration would be R. Mildred’s entry in the “Blowjob Wars” from a couple years ago, at the mostly-political Punkass Blog. Here’s the relevant part.

Look to the Heavens, Oh Yeh Of Little Faith, for anything that should, always, requires you sticking a digit or thumb up the guys butthole and stimulating his prostate for it be maximally pleasurable for the guy, is not supportive of the patriarchy.
...

The middle finger is the fellatio finger, never forget that, and we sex-positive, feminist, heterosexuals display it to show that we know it’s proper use.

The rest of the entry isn’t directly relevant to this post but you can read it here.

Which also introduces the third factor, one that might complicate things a bit: since potential for anal stimulation, and potential interest in stimulating, are randomly distributed some percentage of the population (I don’t know how large or small) are going to be ignorant of the possibility, and a possibly even larger percentage may be indoctrinated to believe, or may just believe due to Freudian-style memories of potty training, that it’s sick, wrong, inappropriate, painful, etc. to touch or be touched “back there.”

They might even grow up with the socially-instilled belief that this randomly distributed set of characteristics is “gay…”

With the result that gay men, operating under less social stigma and, indeed, influenced by stereotypes might be more inclined to find out if they enjoy anal stimulation and/or stimulating. But… if they’re part of the distribution then even though they might be more inclined to try it, they’re no more likely than anyone else to enjoy it. They’re just more likely to discover whether they do. Or don’t.

Point being that as with so much else about people and especially about people and sex, our stereotypes can enable inclinations or discourage them but in a way that tends to confine everybody.

Final note: Based on conversations and reading it sure sounds like gay men get that enjoyment is distributed pretty well. Straight men, for instance, are evidently far more likely to keep pushing a partner for anal sex after she’s declined. (Which, I might add, may have way more to do with men’s drive to get that all-important no-sex class-confirming “no” from his partner than with any objective difference in penile sensation.) Gay men, on the other hand, are more likely to have found out for themselves, or learned in ordinary conversation with other experienced men, that it’s great for some but not for everybody.

No wait, final final note: R. Mildred’s post also illustrates that enjoyment of anal sex isn’t only not confined to gay men, it’s also not confined to anal penetration with a penis.

Orientation and Ass Play

Tue, 2008-07-15 22:29


Photo by Flickr user Travis S. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Heather Corinna, who’s got a new weekly column at RHRealityCheck.org effortlessly clarifies at least three misconceptions in response to a young man’s question


novastar asks:

“I’m not gay, but I like my butt and anus played with. Can someone tell me why?”

Heather replies:
I sure can, and I’m glad you asked.

Know what? Some gay men do NOT like having any sort of anal sex. Enjoyment of anal sex does not define or determine homosexuality, and lack of enjoyment of anal sex does not define or determine heterosexuality. So, a guy can be gay and yet not be all that interested in or even enjoy anal play. You can also be gay without engaging in anal sex: being gay is about being attracted to the same-sex, not about having a certain kind of sex, so even a gay guy who never has sex with anyone is still gay, just like a hetero person who has never had sex can still know they’re heterosexual and be heterosexual. A guy can be straight and enjoy anal sex great big bunches: if you only desire anal play with men, then we’re dealing with an orientation issue, but if you desire and enjoy anal play full-stop, it’s just not about sexual orientation. Men of all orientations may or may not enjoy sexual anal stimulation, and the same goes for women of all stripes.
She says all that and more here.

Funny when you think about it, really. I mean even going by the most generous percentages for LGBT populations there are substantially more straight people into anal play than LGBT people, or, dialing in closer, substantially more straight men into it than gay men.

Which raises an interesting corollary: Sadly for the “ex-gay” conversion community even though there are more straight people like it than gay, not only doesn’t ass play make you gay, it won’t make you straight either!

Anal Intercourse: On Giving Up If It's Only Giving In

Thu, 2008-05-22 11:11


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

Lux Alptraum of BOINKOLOGY says

I’m reading a cover story from the August issue of Entertainment Weekly of that year, when they reference the “infamous anal sex” episode of Sex and the City. ... What?! I like anal sex. I like Sex and the City. Why had I never heard of this before? ... Turns out it was from the fourth episode of the first season. ... Sadly…our girl decided against the butt sex.
...

At no time is the question of Charlotte’s pleasure ever really a focus of the discussion — among her friends or with her boyfriend. (Although considering that the episode was written by a man, maybe that’s to be expected.) Doesn’t anybody ever ask if Charlotte would have enjoyed a good assfucking? Why does anal have to be something that she “surrenders,” as if it were her chastity and this were the 17th century? For a show that was supposed to be on the cutting edge of sexual enlightenment, it seems to take a pretty back-ass position on anal (pun intended).

Read the quote in context here.

I kind of wonder about that “surrenders” business too. Not that there’s anything wrong with surrender or submission if you’re into it, but… but…

See, here’s the thing. Until really, really recently ass fucking was pretty much about two things in popular culture: a) a really obscure form of androcentric heterosexual birth control found mostly in “Victorian” porn and/or “gritty” 20th-Century “men’s reading,” and b) what them homersexhuls do because (androcentric bias again) it was their substitute for “normal” intercourse. Oh, and I suppose b1) what “latent homosexuals” wanted to do with their hetero partners, but that’s sort of a subset of b.

Notice, though, that aside from the androcentricity there’s (if there’s a man in the picture he has to be putting his cock somewhere or it’s not really “sex” at all) there’s not really much in those suppositions about surrender or submission. Receptivity, sure, and that often implies a lot of dynamics, but it wasn’t the same.

One big misconception in the old conception of assfucking was that all gay men enjoyed it. Instead anecdotally and (can’t find a link right away) statistically speaking about 50% enjoy it enough to make it part of their regular activities and the other half would rather do… all the other non-intercourse-y things two people can do together. Which suggests that maybe more of the gay men who do it do so because… they enjoy it?

Contrast to more common discussions, though, where it really is about domination and submission, capture and surrender.

There’s the conversation Alptraum cites from SITC

...I applaud Charlotte for not doing something she didn’t want to. But on the other, what I find interesting about her decision — and about the earlier discussion with her friends on anal — is how stygmatized the act still seems. Miranda warns her about the loss of power. Carrie gravely asks if she’s thinking of marrying the guy. Only Samantha, she of the allegedly loose mores, speaks out in favor of it. The whole fact that she’s contemplating — egads!— some backdoor action is treated as a DEFCON 5-national-emergency-situation among the ladies.

And I scarcely need bring up that Details Magazine article again.

And while I have no direct experience of it, the common narrative of the “bend over boyfriend” phenomenon seems to be a lot more about women turning the dominance tables rather than returning a favor.

And yet a lot of people — men and women — really do seem to enjoy not just having their asses played with but straight ahead assfucking. (Quite a few people add that penetration with penises feels better than fingers.) That’s not to say it’s not emotionally or physically intense, nor does it mean it needn’t be done carefully. Especially till you get the hang of it. But the same thing’s true of the other major ways to do penile penetration.

So… what is the deal here? As Alptraum asks “Doesn’t anybody ever ask if Charlotte would have enjoyed a good assfucking? Why does anal have to be something that she “surrenders,” as if it were her chastity and this were the 17th century?”

Last tip? I don’t have that much experience but from own androcentric perspective while anal penetration does feel different from vaginal penetration it doesn’t feel enough different to make it a sensory must-do. Therefore from a partner-centric perspective (instead of an androcentric one) the appeal really is about how one’s partner feels about it. It’s actually pretty great if she or he gets a plain old tactile rush from it. And it’s fun if their enjoyment is more about playing with roles of dominance, submission, and surrender instead. But… seriously, why bother if the penetratees aren’t into it enough to suggest it themselves?

[Correction: It looks like Lux Alptraum hosted the post but it was a guest post from Xorn Smith. —fl]

Anal Sex: More Than One Way To Do It

Sun, 2007-12-16 17:22

One of my big irritations with industrial porn (to the extent clips of clearly commercial porn uploaded to sites like YouPorn are representative) is that there’s generally only one way heterosexuals do anything. Blowjobs? Well, porn tries to teach us that sooner or later she’ll invariably cock her head way back with her mouth open, waiting with extraordinary-if-one-was-actually-horny passivity while the guy frantically masturbates up to half a foot away.

Anal sex? Well, in porn it’s rear entry, butt high, quick insertion with very little evidence of lube, then whacka-whacka-whacka pumping. Oh yeah, then turn around, she goes on her knees, head back, passively waiting, waiting, waiting…. waiting… while, invariably, he frantically whacks off, again, from what I’d call a considerable distance. Oh, unless he sticks it in her mouth for a bit and then backs off for the masturbation bit.

Boring. Also not how most people recommend you get started.

Anyway Holly of The Pervocracy picked a method that probably won’t be picked up by the Industrials because it doesn’t exacerbate whatever itch it is their customers think they want scratched, but as these things go it did have a couple of elements in its favor, especially for…

Welp, today I lost my anal virginity. (My last “virginity” of even slight consequence. I guess I’m a Woman now. I feel so different.)

I was hilariously nervous, so I did it the most controlled way possible—tied Jon to the bed, hands out of my way, hips too tightly bound to thrust up at me—got him hard, lubed him up, gritted my teeth, and… it slid right in and felt rather nice. No pain, no poo, and to be honest, it felt surprisingly similar to getting fucked the regular way. It was good. He liked it too.

She said it here.

Now Holly and her partner Jon are big into BDSM sensation play, and they switch roles constantly, so her method might not for everybody. But then when it comes to sex what method is?

Now I’d suggest that if the pain of anal sex wasn’t so hyped (by, say, certain toolbags found in Details Magazine for whom discomfort seemed to be the only real benefit) then Holly might not have taken so many precautions. But any number of sources recommend her basic approach: the “receptive” person doesn’t just call the shots, she or he takes the active role.

Hmm. Couple of other points as long as I’m on the subject.

This one from Holly as well


Finger in butt = ugh.

Penis in butt = ooh.

I think this has discouraged a tragic number of people from trying butt play. Because if something as small as a finger is so uncomfortable, anything bigger must be worse, right? Wrong.

She makes the rest of her point here.

Partners have mentioned the same effect for vaginal penetration and now that she mentions it the few times I’ve experiemented there really is a big, big comfort difference between fingers and dildos in the butt. Anyone else notice this?

—-

And finally, the folks at Midwest Teen Sex Show have tackled anal sex this week with their usual combination of dead-on info and seriously don’t-try-this-at-home humor sketches. They address the issue of poop (if you’re uncomfortable talking about poop you’re not ready for anal sex), lubrication and protection (in an even better than usual midwest cooking show skit), and my favorite Laura the Tooth point that “if anyone gets it in the ass, everyone gets it”) that promotes a healthy “do unto others as they will do unto you. Next” approach.

Another first-time question

Tue, 2007-09-18 13:24

In her comment to my Pimply-faced youth post the other day Quilzas said

But as for the first-time sex itself. Hm. Well, actually, first time for me was anal. I wasn’t quite on birth control yet and I was tired of waiting. It was fun, we had a great time. :D

She said it here.

Last spring a lot of people had fun mocking “intelligent designers” for their claims that, say, bananas are curved to fit the palm of our hand and therefore creationism is true. One twist that came up was expressed nicely in comments

Imagine that in an Australian accent:

“Now, what I’m doing now is dropping my pants and bending over. Now, look at that. Notice that my anal opening is round and roughly the width of your penis. Go ahead and show them. Stick your penis in my anus. There. See how perfectly that fits? Also notice that my anal cavity goes deep enough to take the whole shaft. Go ahead and show them how you can repeatedly move your penis in and out. Good. See how perfectly that fits?”

Source: AZImagine at RichardDawkins.net

So…

The world of heteronormativity and, especially, our now-basic-but-extremely-recent ideas about basic hygiene don’t cultivate us to see it that way, and for a lot of us age and experience tends to blur our earliest attempts, but in terms of things one can do with a penis anal penetration isn’t that much harder or often any more awkward or uncomfortable than vaginal penetration. Nor (since, upon rereading Quilzas’s comment, I notice even here my cultural conditioning is trying to take over) need anal penetration be any less than “fun, we had a great time. :D”

Except for a two-year period of surgically-facilitated fertility I’ve had vasectomies since I was 21. But several of my partners mentioned that they chose anal intercourse as an alternative to abstinence when birth control was unavailable.

Now at least according to a blogger named Mark Pincus this may be another one of those generational things, e.g.

...we found that most urban 20 something women saw anal as normal while those in their 30’s and 40’s saw it as something taboo, racy, raunchy, slutty (take your pick).

He said it here.

So… I’m curious. Assuming nobody involved is a clueless dimplick and also assuming your experiences were voluntary and intentional, and of course, assuming you’ve tried both, how would you compare your first times trying vaginal and anal intercourse? And which did you try first?

For me I think it was actually a lot easier trying anal penetration for the first time. For one thing I was older, I already had a lot of experience with vaginal intercourse, and since I was out of adolescence I think I just had a lot less of that teenage angst-on-the-line, whoa-this-is-it feeling. For another my partner was way more experienced and so was able to take the lead and tell me exactly where, when, how, and how quickly she wanted to proceed. Which is a good thing because I was so heart-thumpingly solemnly/aroused/thrilled/honored/curious, not to mention head-over-heels in love anyway, that I was practically trembling. (I think my partner and I trembled the first time I had vaginal sex as well, but that had a lot to do with our dead fear of pregnancy combined with our dodgy contraception techniques.)

Nudge, nudge, say no more about demanding anal sex

Sun, 2007-07-15 10:42

Query: Doesn’t Details Magazine, source of the infamous article about men “demanding” anal sex, sell into the same low-wage, lower pink-collar-worker class of men corresponding to, say, the women Cosmopolitan targets? If so then how much credibility do we give either the authors or the interviewees when it comes to the following claim?

For other men, the appeal of anal penetration is less the novelty—and the fact that it gives them a good story to tell over beers—and more the psychology. “For most of my friends, it’s sort of a domination thing,” says John (not his real name), 30, a writer in New York. “[It’s] basically getting someone in a position where they’re most vulnerable. My friends enjoy that and they tell their friends they did it.

Sorry. It doesn’t sound worldy, or manly, and certainly not studly. In fact despite all the butch language, more than anything they all sound sound a great deal like the Eric Idle character in the Monty Python “Nudge Nudge, Say No More” skit, below.

Which gentleman most closely resembles the average Details subscriber? Say no more.

Country bumkins trying to take the A train

Tue, 2007-07-10 22:25

As I’ve mentioned a couple of times I grew up in the rural south. So last summer when for the first time I actually went to New York City and needed to take the (legendary) A Train to Greenwich Village I got pretty lost. And if I’d tried to brag that I knew my way around the subways there people would have called me out for bullshitting pretty quickly.

I bring this up because of a Details Magazine article called “Is It OK to Demand Anal Sex?” Jessica Valenti of Feministing first posted it.

Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon and her commenters brilliantly dismantle the authors and interviewees who claim to persistently demand, and constantly be given, anal sex… so they can brag about it to their male friends.

I just want to bring up one point though. Check out the accompanying illustration from the article

Does the placement or alignment of the tracks, tunnel, or train in that image accurately suggest impending anal sex? Not at all. Impending conventional rear-entry vaginal sex, maybe. In other words it’s a desperately clueless illustration that, I think, mirrors the cluelessness of the would-be-worldly gentlemen who participated in the production of the article at any point.

My first clue would be that by all accounts including my own personal experience, boys in lockerrooms brag about how much and what kind of sex they’re having up to, but no further than, the point where they begin actually having sex! That the interviewees spoke glowingly about bragging rights sounds pretty, um, adolescent and inexperienced.

User login