Some of the comments to Courtney Martin’s perfectly ordinary, sensibly inquiring post about a re-released 1985 movie about sexual surrogates were a little, um, over the top. But that’s ok, they were substantially uninformed too.

“Word..I haven’t seen the movie or anything, but the concept creeps me out. Will another form of therapy address “anger issues” where the client gets to stab the therapist to get over his insecurity?”

...

“Does anyone have any information on why this is not considered prostitution? She is having sex for money? [For the record, I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with prostitution or sexual surrogacy, I just don’t understand what the difference is.]”

...

“oh please, somebody just wants a “valid” excuse to make money while having sex with random people. Nothing’s wrong with that, but don’t pretend otherwise.”

...

“we act like the only possible way for a sexual part to ‘function/ is to do something. But having that part do nothing is as normal and natural and predictable as having it do something, so why do we automatically call it doing nothing ‘dysfunction’?”

...

I’m not clear, was [Bay Area psychologist Bernie] Zilbergeld implying that he was pimping out the sex surrogates he worked with for non-therapeutic purposes?

Found in comments here.

What. Ever!

[To be honest the rest of this post is a bit of an old-fashioned curmudgeonly rant. If you’re not into that sort of thing I’ll totally not be offended if you don’t read on. —fl]

Yeah, it’s really nice hearing so many people just being dead sure that sex surrogacy is prostitution. Really nice. It’s like all those small-town types who are just as dead sure that massage therapists are prostitutes (the customer undresses; the therapist touches them; naked+touch=prostitution Q.E.D.)

And hey, it’s not even a totally bogus conclusion to draw: during the 1970s “massage parlour” was basically a legal euphemism for “brothel.” That this mistake drives actual non-sex-worker massage practitioners absolutely insane (from the community accusation, stigma, and avoidance standpoint) and puts them at risk of physical danger and professional embarrassment (from confused customers hoping for “happy endings) should not be “just a cost of doing business.”

But please, by all means, go ahead and assume based on very little knowledge and a 1985 movie that sexual surrogates, like massage therapists, are glorified whores.

—-

Let’s think for a minute about the premise of this post. Hmm. Let’s see. A movie maker decides to make a movie. His backers hint that they’d like to see a return on their investment. Society is a big knee-squeezing, voyeuristic, patriarchal mess. So the movie maker makes his decision to… surprise!... choose scenarios that he hopes are informative but that, necessarily, have maximum salacious value. Which would be, what? Women taking money to have sex with men with cliche dysfunctions like 40-year-old virginity and bad divorces.

Riiigght! Why don’t we base all our assumptions on Hollywood contingencies. Did you know Vulcans can interbreed with humans? That CSI labs are all glass, chrome, and edgy lighting with multi-million dollar machines that work every time? Did you know innocent bystanders always dive out of the way in the nick of time during high-speed car chases?

Yeah, and sex surrogates are really just prostitutes with no training, really mostly women, really working mostly with men, really working with problems they should just suck up and get over, yada yada yada.

Hey, sometimes it’s true. More often not.

I don’t know what the state of the art in surrogacy is, but I used to know someone who did. She wasn’t a sex therapist, she was (if I recall correctly) a psychiatric nurse who moonlighted on a largely volunteer basis and took what she did very seriously. She didn’t work to “cure” erectile dysfunction, she worked with mostly men who for various reasons wanted to be able to have sex but had (mostly) psychological problems that weren’t always related to sex itself but to, say, body boundary issues, PTSD. Other times the point was to overcome conditioned aversions to sexual contact, to overcome childhood sexual trauma, or to overcome issues of emotional trust. Also I’m not sure where people got the idea that surrogates only work with single men. Many patients are, or at least were, in partnerships.

And finally, it’s just not the case that sexual surrogates have actual sex with their clients. Because unless you’ve totally drunk the coolade of “sex” meaning only PIV intercourse there are generally quite a few steps… and roadblocks… before you get to intercourse. Or even get close to intercourse.

But no, please, let’s all squeeze our knees together and insist it’s illegitimate, insist it violates ethics, insist therapists “pimp out” surrogates to their clients, insist it’s all about patriarchy, insist that all clients are men and all surrogates are women, insist they’re all heterosexual, insist clients are all unkempt shlubs who should get over it, insist (dear sweet mother of pearl!) that it’s some kind of “sacred temple” revival thing, and insist it’s all about Teh Intercourse because what else could something related to sex therapy possibly be about? Because we all feel so much better when we do that we don’t have to actually, you know, think about whether it a) serves a purpose, b) meets a need, or c) might be undertaken competently, professionally, and, believe it or not, sometimes surprisingly non-salaciously.

Clue? Eight seconds with Google (try it some time) turns up lewd, suggestive code words like “These therapeutic experiences include partnerwork in relaxation, effective communication, sensual and sexual touching, and social skills training.”

“Effective communication?” Nudge, nudge, eh? “Social skills training?” A wink’s as good as a nod to a bloind man, say no more!

Another clue? (21 seconds with Google): “Often female clients will ask their therapists, or seek out therapists who are open to the possibility, to find a male surrogate with whom they might work. Largely because of the sexual double standard that continues to operate in many, if not most, therapists, however, most clients of surrogates continue to be male.” (Admittedly that was from a 1984 paper.)

Final clue? From a 2007 post about sex therapy: “a study published earlier this year in the Journal of Sexual Medicine found surrogate therapy was significantly more effective than couples therapy alone in treating vaginismus.”

Sheesh!

Britni of Oh My God, That Britni’s Shameless gets gently ruthless about abstinence-only education being a cruel, murderous prank perpetrated against young people in order to make other people feel the illusion of vicarious virtue**.

Bristol Palin is proof that abstinence-only education doesn’t work. The best part about it is that her mother’s entire sex education platform is for abstinence-only education, yet her daughter is a perfect example of why it’s ineffective. And Bristol, I think, is trying to say that as much as she can. By saying “abstinence is unrealistic” she really means that “teenagers are going to have sex anyway.” And by saying “don’t end up like me” she is implying that you “shouldn’t get pregnant at 17.”

Q: How do we prevent pregnancy when teenagers are going to be having sex anyway? 
A: By teaching teenagers how to prevent pregnancy. 

I know, I know. That sounds so logical and obvious. But that right there, abstinence-only education advocates, is why your way just won’t work. The kids are gonna fuck. So please, let’s teach them how to do it safely. Bristol Palin is totally on board for comprehensive sex ed, regardless of what her mother thinks.

Not only did [Palin’s mother, Governor Sarah Palin] not equip her with the tools to have safe sex because she is for abstinence-only education, but she is pro-life and therefore wouldn’t allow Bristol to abort the kid that she didn’t want and ended up pregnant with accidentally. Those right-wingers make total sense. I’m not gonna teach you how not to get pregnant, and then I’m not gonna let you abort the kid you don’t want and aren’t ready to raise.

Read the quote in context here.

Can’t put it much more clearly, or bluntly than that.

[** “Gee figleaf, how do you really feel about that? —fl]

Megan of Jezebel has a wonderfully tongue-in-cheek post about a seriously wonderful bill before congress: Upstate New York Congresswoman Louise Slaughter’s H.R. 463: The Prevention First Act of 2009

The damnable liberals are seeking to pass a law that requires states give medically accurate information to kids! That acknowledges abstinence! That teaches that men and boys have responsibilities to not pressure women and girls! That encourages parental involvement! That doesn’t promote religion! It’s like they’re trying to destroy the very fabric of our society!

Use this page to email your Congress member about H.R. 463 and this page to email your Senators about Harry Reid’s companion bill, S. 21.

Seriously, read Megan’s whole post, including a rundown of what’s in the bill, here.

My take would be that opponents really do see that as liberals attempting to destroy the very fabric of our society.

When your fabric is woven with the warp of “it is simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for women to have (or at least admit to having) sexual desire” and the weft of “it is simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for men to be sexually desired” then no matter how hellish the toll in actual human lives it’s simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable to teach otherwise lest that fabric fly apart. Women must either be bribed or forced into sexuality; gay men must be pilloried, sex for women has to be about pregnancy, men must be worthy in order to “earn” sex, parents must only fret about girls and fume about boys, etc., etc.

Never mind that “liberals” want instead to weave a finer, more durable, less costly cloth than coarse plaid of red and white.

Over on the wonderful sex-ed site Scarleteen.com authors CJ Turett and Heather Corinna have posted an in-depth, non-gender-specific article called “Let’s Get Metaphysical: The Etiquette of Entry.”

Vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse, placing fingers inside a vagina or anus, fellatio (blowjobs), in plenty of ways with cunnilingus (oral sex for women), and even kissing with your tongue are all some ways we might enter someone else’s body or have someone else enter our own.

All text quoted in this post are from here.

First of all it’s just so cool that they’re calling it “entry,” which locates things in the person entered instead of “penetration,” which tends to emphasize the person doing the entering. And with that in mind here’s a clip on the section about why they think it’s important to deconstruct entry in the first place.

• The person whose body is being entered is usually at a higher risk of injury or sexually transmitted infections, because it is their genital tissue which is most likely to wind up with small abrasions, fissures or micro-tears. For any partner involved, when there is bodily entry going on, the stakes are higher than they are with, say, dry sex, or rubbing someone’s breasts or penis.

• The person whose body is being entered is often the person more likely to experience any pain or discomfort, often due to things like nerves, inadequate arousal or lubrication, or an aggressive or over-eager partner.

• If we’re talking about an instance of sex and a combination of body and parts that could possibly result in pregnancy, it’s the person whose body is being entered who is at risk of pregnancy.

• Many people have had or do have trauma when it comes to others entering their bodies, whether due to the forced entry of rape, having experienced pain in the past with entry, medical abuses, childbirth experiences, or experiences with a previous partner who disrespected or disregarded limits, boundaries, or desire. Both the physical body and the mind remember pain, so previous pain — be that physical and/or emotional — can make entry scary for some people or trigger some challenging or painful emotions regarding previous traumatic experiences.

• We have a lot of cultural baggage that says only women get entered and only men do the entering, or that any kind of entry is a kind of violation or powerplay. For some men, a lot of homophobia can also be tied up into them being entered, as entrance has historically been constructed as a passive or more feminine role. Balancing our desire or interests with our community, family, or religious values—as well as what we’ve been taught from other places—is not always an easy task.

• Some people may have gender identity issues with either being entered or entering someone’s body. The ways we feel about our own bodies and body parts, and whether those align with what our partners may see about us or understand about our identities, can sometimes be confusing. Regardless of our gender, we may also have preferences about what kind of sexual roles we see as acceptable or desirable for ourselves.

• Some people also have shame tied up into the insides of their body, or the fluids or substances with which contact can be made, particularly when entry is involved.

And from a section on entry, personal space, and boundaries

This might sound a little hokey, but entrance into another body — whether you are inviting it for yourself or someone else is inviting you inside of them — is often a profound moment of connection. While all sexual activity, regardless of whether or not there is entry present, is an opportunity for this sort of connection, physically crossing into and entering into another body can be highly emotional for a lot of people. But it’s easy to forget or overlook that when you’re busy thinking about everything else, like how to physically go about it or how you’re performing or whether or not you’re “doing it right”.

And a historically-critical from a section called “A Vagina is Not a Sock, and Other Helpful Hints”

With any bodily orifice, we’re not talking about something that is passive or just lying around. Body parts exist within relationship to other body parts, within relationship to complex bodily systems, reactions, and interactions. The mouth is active and full of muscles. The vagina is a muscle. The anal sphincters, anus, and rectum are muscles. And with any of those parts, if we’re really paying attention rather than going into our own heads or focusing only on our own bodies, we can feel when they are really are opening up to us and when they are not.

And, a fairly big one, from the section on patriarchal, feminist, and heteronormative constructions of entry

Heterocentrism also makes it really easy to skew this conversation to only be about heterosexually-identified people who were assigned male at birth (and who still identify as male) with people who were assigned female at birth (and who still identify as female). Heterocentrism can mean that we often default to viewing penis-in-vagina sex as “real” sex, and anything else as somehow less or not valid even though they really are mighty similar and have some very important things in common.

On distinguishing between body signals, body language, and verbal consent

Lest we unintentionally send an inaccurate message, this is not to say that if the bodily signals are there (erection, lubrication, a flushed face or chest, increased swelling around the genitals, increased heart rate—all of which can be signals of arousal) then all systems are a go and you have complete liberty to do as you may with your partner. Nope. All of the signals need to be in alignment, and indicators of bodily readiness can only take on meaning in the presence of verbal consent. Consent is not simply the absence of NO; it’s an active statement of yes, and a freely given and enthusiastic YES at that.

And finally from a section on the language of entry itself

The wording and construct of “penetration” can imply that one person is pushing through or into another, often by overcoming resistance. In some contexts, that word can deny or make invisible the fact that while, indeed, sometimes that can be how an encounter goes – particularly when we’re talking about rape rather than consensual partnered sex – that’s not actually what is going on when sex is wanted by all partners, and everyone is emotionally present and bodies are fully engaged.

...

Instead of saying “receptive,” when we talk about the partner who is being entered, we might say that a partner and their body are welcoming, yielding, inviting, taking in, enfolding, embracing. Heck, even “entry” is a bit limited. We’re short of language for so much of what we’re talking about here in large part because for such a long time the ways that we’ve talked about sex were (and in many ways still are) all caught up in the politics of separateness, inequality, of conquering, and of power-over rather than power shared.

I’m sure it sounds like I’ve just quoted the whole thing. But Heather and CJ have put a lot of work into this. Oh, and incidentally, except for a few posts by people like Bitchy Jones, most of the work on… I dunno… call it the philosophy of entry/penetration was done back in the 1970s. And a lot has changed since then. Anyway, it’s good stuff and I highly recommend it.