I think that the objections against these classes holds the same problem as many similar power-oriented analyses of relationships. It doesn't attend to the fact that real people are doing the fucking and they aren't wearing little hats that say "patriarch" and "receptacle". I have trouble relating to these concerns because I have an attentive lover that is concerned for my pleasure and equality (at least in my book) is equal concern for his. I also think the question of women entering a male-dominated mode of sexual operation is an interesting one. Regardless of who pleasure it is aimed at (and since when is getting your partner off not pleasurable?) breaking down barriers about what good girls do and do not do can't be a bad thing.

["...and since when is getting your partner off not pleasurable?" I'm so glad you can ask that question, Ellie. In previous generations it really wasn't so obvious. And, for that matter, there are plenty of people today who think more in terms of duty than enjoyment. So I think you're great. Thanks. --fl]

• reply

I think the problem lies in the expectation (by both parties) of "comely reticence."
If a woman wants foreplay and the man isn't up to it, the woman needs to initiate and sustain the foreplay. She could do this by pleasuring the man or by guiding the man to pleasure her. As far as sexual aggressiveness in women goes, the former is more socially acceptable.

[Thanks, Shakes. Yeah, I think both genders are a little reluctant to guide their partners -- even back in the 1960s the big, big, big piece of sex-ed advice was "talk to your partner." As far as I know it still is! So yeah, rather than talk and, especially, rather than ask, I think a lot of us just kind of mutely "soldier on" -- never mentioning what we're not enjoying and often never realize what our partners aren't enjoying! Thanks, Shakes. --fl]

• reply

I've known (biblically!) men who did not care to receive foreplay, unless it was a hand or mouth focused directly on their cocks, by a direct route, with no detours on the way there.

Himself, on the other hand, loves being on the receiving end of foreplay. Fortunately for him, I love to give it. I get so incredibly aroused by the smell and taste of his skin as I tease and kiss all those bits that make him shiver, and hear the gasps and sudden indrawn breaths, and the occasional whimper! So, for me, lavishing that kind off attention on my partner is for OUR pleasure, not just his.

[I was always so surprised when a partner seemed interested in playing with me. But I mean playing -- it took a long time for me to learn to be responsive to serious oral or hand stimulation of my cock. Thanks, Windhag. --fl]

• reply

Hmmm, my sense of the foreplay "tradition" is about 180 degrees from yours!

Getting men off is, after all, the world's oldest profession. And for men of my generation, the idea of "providing" female orgasm went out the window with Shere Hite -- or at least the Saturday Night Live parody.

Finally, have a look at any issue of Cosmo. Month after month, year after year, the hed in the prime upper-left corner is almost invariably some variation on "397 Ways to Rock His World" (while the lower right usually contains some version of "Why It's OK to Be a Bitch"). Other women's magazines generally have more subtle versions of the same thing -- men's pleasure is heavily prioritized.

Meanwhile, little girls typically aren't even taught the name of their primary organ of sexual pleasure. And a popular entertainment celebrating women's physical sexuality is named after the organ which typically gives far more pleasure to men.

That said, I'm all for foreplay classes if people want them. It's all good. But I think that many women would benefit more from learning to receive.

[Hi Kyria. Agreed about Cosmo and its whole "10 ways to tell if you're having an orgasm" stressmongering, but I wasn't aware that Cosmo was actually any more influential than its lad-mag bretheren. More disturbing to me are far more earnest magazines like Men's or Women's Health who try surprisingly hard to push people to think instead of just pumping them with adrenaline or anxiety -- too often they still come up short. You said "...and a popular entertainment celebrating women's physical sexuality is named after the organ which typically gives far more pleasure to men." and I'm embarrassed to say I'm drawing a blank on which entertainment or which organ. Finally, Kyria, I'm in complete agreement that both women *and* men would benefit from lessons in *receiving* as well as giving. Thanks. --fl]

• reply

My favorite college professor often told us that in many studies done, there was more difference found between individuals [i.e. between two women] than there were between the two genders as a whole.

That said, my boyfriend complains all the TIME about me not slowing down enough for some foreplay. Not because he wants me to do this or that to him, but because he wants to slowly work ME up.
Course I have a whole complex of issues there that can creatively worked through.
Anyhow, my point is that I'm much more for the quick hard fuck or quick and intense love making than the slow, teasing, so good it hurts somewhere deep inside your chest... kind of lovin'.

Case and point... each one of us is this unique mold and mixture of sexuality that is continually evolving, dying, changing, morphing, and so on and so forth. It's no more about men versus women as it is about this race versus that [or whatever].

About foreplay... I think that ideally [yes, I just said I'm not a huge fan] it should be a big deal. It's the courting of the two bodies. Who is performing foreplay on whom? Huh? I take pleasure in my partner's pleasure and visa versa. Therefore active and passive blur into a simmery red fog of hott intimacy.

A healthy human [male, female, whatever] should be able to explore both their own pleasures and how to better bring pleasure to those they choose to care for. Their methods of exploration and learning might vary, and that's fine. Just so long as we're open to exploring and understanding.

[Funny, Kicesie, but I'm working on another post right along these lines. Anyway, yes, one of my most important partners was (and probably still is) way quicker to get off than me. Extended foreplay wasn't a big thing for her and she could be *very* quick to have her orgasm and be done, done, done. We sort of graveyard-humorously joked that she was a premature "ejaculator." Anyway, the point is that you're right, not everyone fits stereotypes. In fact, I think if you could get people somewhere private (oh, say, like their anonymous blogs!) you'd hear that actually very few people fit stereotypes at all. Thanks! --fl]

• reply

I wrote a Bitch How-Tuesday once that started out reflecting on some silly belt buckle I'd seen about how women need to get in touch with their pussy. This started me off on a rant that ended up in a weird place -- basically saying to the men who were largely my readers early on -- that they needed to learn to love their cocks.

That's my thing: I think that what men don't really love is their cocks. You see all kinds of claims to the contrary -- that they worship them. And a lot of people complain that men are too focused on genitals instead of the erogenous zones of the entire body.

OK. But I'm tellin' ya, I think they need to love their cock as something that is sexy and a turn on.

:)

[Thank you, b|l, and you're exactly right. It's not so much that we love our cocks as that we constantly worry about them. They get hard when we most wish they wouldn't, won't get hard when we most wish they would, come too soon when we most wish they wouldn't, and won't come at all when we most wish they would. I was lucky to run across a genuinely progressive men's sexuality book back in the 1980s that worked me through a lot of that process. It's not so much that I "ain't that great?" love it as that I've come to grips with it as part of who I am and not some other thing that "thinks with its own head." --fl]

• reply

I'd like to throw a cat amongst the sexual pigeons here and question the whole concept of "foreplay". While the term may be used to describe kissing and fondling, on the whole it's usually taken to mean "getting the woman ready for intercourse."

There's been a debate in the past that the idea "foreplay" perpetuates the construct of "sex" as being intercourse to male orgasm. It helps to marginalise the female orgasm and perpetuates the idea that a woman should only come during penetrative intercourse. Think about the way that cunnilingus is so often relegated to "foreplay" rather than the main course, which is what it should be for a large number of women who can get off most easily this way.

So where does "male foreplay" fit in here? I'm not sure, but I think the social conditioning surrounding the word "foreplay" makes us think it's not a thing that should occur. Is fellatio foreplay? How about a handjob? If a man has an orgasm as a result of "foreplay", how can that be "sex"?

Oh, and I think Kyria was discussing the Vagina Monologues (which I've ranted about myself).

[First of all, thanks so much for the reminder that "foreplay" was invented as a solution to a "problem" and not for any intrinsic enjoyment either party might experience. I guess I reject the notion that it still has that purpose. I guess my first question is why one would want to give men orgasms as part of foreplay? I've had enough women partners who are just done and lose interest (or even roll over and go to sleep) after an orgasm to understand the disappointment of taking things too far. Although I've also been there enough to appreciate how intensely pleasurable it is to take that chance, even if it means I'd be left hanging afterwards. As for the Vagina Monologues, I'm embarrassed to say I've never seen it or read the script so I didn't get Kyria's reference. Thanks again, Naughty. I really appreciated your comment. --fl]

• reply

That said I'm still going to do a double-take every time someone says pole dancing in health clubs.

Have it your way, fig, but I'm just getting pretty sick of people trying to tell me what it's all about and what it means and what it symbolizes and on and on and on blah blah blah... when I'm someone who's actually doing it and they don't know a damn thing about it.

I try not to talk out of my ass. I greatly appreciate it when others extend the same courtesy.

[No no, I totally get that, Amber. And especially in the nobody-who's-not-from-there-believes-how-radical-it-can-be Southern Applachian culture I totally accept that your class isn't motivated by man-pleasing. (Just as I certainly know that most health-club classes aren't training classes for professional strippers.) So I really meant it when I said I believed you. But I also learned to accept the local Northwest grunge rock fans who shaved their heads and called themselves skinheads even though they weren't at all racist (they insisted that "real" skinheads should be called "boneheads.") But the point is that whenever I saw them I still came up short the same way. I just gotta ask that you look and see that people who make the mistake aren't being wilful. Yes it's a real mistake but like the skinhead confusion it's a *legitimate* mistake. I hope that makes enough sense. Thanks. --fl]

• reply

I just gotta ask that you look and see that people who make the mistake aren't being wilful. Yes it's a real mistake but like the skinhead confusion it's a *legitimate* mistake. I hope that makes enough sense.

I do understand that - but I would also argue that a mistake out of ignorance (rather than being "willful") is still a mistake. There are plenty of people who are (for example) racist not out of hatred but out of ignorance - that doesn't make it right or okay.

As for this, from Colette:

I also think it's a little strange that it's the girls who take the classes who are the first ones to try and divorce it from strip club pole dancing, as if they think it will make people think that they're sluts or something.

Oh, gag me with a pole. You know, maybe if everyone didn't love to spew their ignorant opinions about pole dancing, them the "girls" who do it wouldn't have to bend over backwards (ha!) to defend it/themselves. Frankly I don't give a shit whether someone thinks I'm a slut, or anything. But some people do care, and are well aware that plenty of people see them that way simply because they take pole-dancing. (Is this middle school? You're a "slut" if you have large breasts/wear tight clothing/talk back/whatever?) Also, did it ever occur to you to just believe the words that are coming out of a woman's mouth? If she says she "only does it because it's the quickest way to a nice ass" - well, shock and awe, she might be telling the truth. As with anything, that doesn't mean her reasons are the same as anyone else's. My reasons are many: 1) get in shape; 2) overcome some old fears; 3) increase my confidence; 4) become more comfortable doing athletic-type stuff (this goes along with #2); and 5) have FUN.

Anyway... figleaf, good luck signing up for pole classes if they offer them... the ones here are for women only, but maybe you'll be more fortunate up there in the grunge rock Northwest!

[Doh! Actually I think you've touched on the big reason a lot of classes are segregated. Good point. Thanks, Amber. --fl]

• reply

There is the standard that

There is the standard that women are nonsexual and should be nonsexual and only engage in sex to fulfill their duty to please their man, I could certainly understand why someone would say these classes perpertuate this myth, but the people that do havn't seen the full picture (plus it does depend on the content somewhat, and mostly it would be the myth that caused the classes and the women to take the classes, not the other way around);

There is  also the standard that men should always make women orgasm in sex; and that is the only thing that matters, (and oddly, it doesn't seem to have to do with the woman's pleasure and seems to have more to do more with it being a 'manly' thing) and that to men, quantity beats quality, that they don't and shouldn't want to mess around with silly things like foreplay and savouring the moment, that they should want to get inside a vagina as quickly as possible, humps as quickly as possible, orgasm as soon as possible and repeat the process again as soon as possible, but that they should make  themselves engage in foreplay becuase if he doesn't make her orgasm his masculinity is at stake, or that they need to engage in foreplay less she reject his advances. 

In response to the question, women learning to give foreplay to men, sure why not?

"When interviewing female teens, McIlvenna says most of them wanted to know ‘how to be a better lay.’” I mean sheesh! Could any other word capture the passivity intended for women in sex more thoroughly than the word “lay?” I mean really! Lay? But I digress…"

The word 'lay' possibly originated that way, as it's root word is 'lay' meaning a prone posture,which is the 'standard' for females in sex, but it's actually used gender-neutrally (and removed from the posture) these days, men often speak of 'being a better lay' and even more often speak of 'getting laid' which quite clearly means to be 'made a lay out of', if the woman was the 'lay' in the situation then the saying would be 'getting a lay"

• reply