Deep Sex

Pleasure and Pain

Roz — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:23:00 GMT

I had a conversation recently with someone who is into S&M about pain and pleasure. Not being a big pain fan, I struggle to understand the role of pain in people's sexual lives. I have heard the same things over and over again from SM folks.

"It's not really about the pain, it's about sensation."
"The pleasure and the pain are all the same."
"It's a spiritual experience for me."
"The orgasms are really intense."

Trying to wrap my mind around this concept has been challenging, as I am not willing to experience a lot of this stuff directly to see what they mean. But just a short while ago, I ran into someone who helped me get it just a little more.

"Well, if you put pleasure on a scale like this," she said, using a blackboard, "and you placed pleasure here, at the bottom," she began drawing a neat, diagonal line upward on a blackboard. "As the line goes up, we get more and more pleasure, you see? And eventually..." she reached the top of the board, "the pleasure would be so intense that it would become pain."

By George I think I've got it! There have been times when my pleasure has been intense enough to be felt as pain. I could go there.

She then repeated the process for pain, explaining that pain becomes pleasure at some point, as well, though it doesn't have to be extreme pain, it's more of an attitude toward pain. I was so glad to have met her. This perspective really opened my eyes to understanding SM a little better.

I also think I understand, at least intellectually, how the pain/pleasure continuum could be felt as a spiritual experience. I simply have to take it out of the sexual realm to do it. I have long discussed our attitude toward pain in this society as being unhelpful. Pain may not be fun (unless you're a masochist), but it is not "bad". It simply is.

And I recognize that pain is part of my experience. I notice that the less I try to pathologically avoid pain, and the more I accept it as part of life, the easier most pain is to bear. In fact, some pain becomes unlike pain at all. Certain types of grief, for instance, are not as hard for me as they once were. Losses are always difficult, but pure grief can actually be beautiful, if I give it room enough. Pure anger (without attempts to control or manipulate) be can painful or uncomfortable, but is also powerful when expressed responsibly. In this way I think I have begun to understand some of where SM practitioners are coming from.

But I'll leave it to them to explain it to me.

The Lesbian Classification System

Roz — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 05:44:00 GMT

We had an enlightening panel of lesbians speak in class today. Three women, all fairly young, all from the black community. They had great things to say, but the thing that stuck with me was that one woman talked about categories within the lesbian community, and she claimed there were 24 of them.

She classified herself as a STEM. A STEM was a word she made up, from combining two terms, Stud and Femme. In the black lesbian community (at least in Oakland), the term for a "butch" lesbian is a "stud." This particular woman said that she saw herself as a STEM because she looked very feminine, but was aggressive in seeking other women out for dates, and also sexually.

Another woman categorized herself as "aggressive femme" for the same reason. They then said there were soft butches, who they described as women who look more masculine, but have feminine behaviors.

I don't know where they had heard about the 24 categories of lesbian (or was it 27?), I think on a black lesbian website. But it was quite the interesting conversation, because it made me muse about why someone felt it necessary to scrutinize gender expression to such a huge extent that they created 24 classifications. And really, at that point, is classification even meaningful? 24 types? Why not just get to know somebody? Have a freakin' conversation, for God's sake. Or our sake. Hell, for anybody's sake.

It wasn't my reaction to the panel. I was very impressed with them. They were all smart, articulate and beautiful. But I would like to find the website with the anal- retentive Amazon who sat around for months or years mentally (and genderly) masturbating to the 24th extent.

Pride, San Francisco Style

Roz — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 05:43:00 GMT

San Francisco Pride Parade

I marched in SF Pride today, and all I have to say is WOW. And Oh...my...God. Nothing like marching 9 blocks in front of half a million people to put life in its proper perspective.

What an exhilarating experience. Such an enormous turnout for such a unique event. I saw history being made as new brides with their brides and grooms with their grooms came out in full gay glory. Wedding veils dyed the color of rainbows, drag queens in bridesmaid gowns, floats to commemorate the new law and the launch into a new era for human rights. All I can think is, what a cool time to be alive!

In addition to new brides and grooms, I saw bare asses sticking out of leather chaps everywhere, the sailor outfits of the city's Gay Men's Chorus, the fanciful garb of the Radical Fairies (with a fair amount of pot smoke for good measure), a whole float full of Charo impersonators (including one 5 year old and one 1 year old Charo...cute as all get out). I saw nude men walking completely carefree and unhindered on Hyde Street, McAllister Street, Beale Street. I saw people of every gender dressing like people of every gender, both for Pride and because they always do. Topless women. Women and men being flogged in public in "Leather Alley", a play space for people involved in Bondage/Discipline/Sadism/Masochism (BDSM). Obama Pride booths. Gay adoption agencies. Gay travel agencies. Rights for sex workers booths.

We walked around the festival until we were exhausted. Though "walking" doesn't quite describe it...it's more like being herded by the sheer mass of the crowd. Moo.

And yet all of this doesn't get at the coolest thing about Pride in San Francisco. It's the freedom to be yourself, no matter what your sex, gender, kink or orientation. As Citibank says...that's priceless.

Transgender March Poem

Roz — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 04:30:00 GMT

Trans March

This is where I've always wanted to be--
in San Francisco, with those who push on the definitions of things,
unravel them recklessly just to know
what it means
and how it feels
to be at our most fully human.

How much difference can we forgive?
How much diversity can we stand?
How much variety can we allow?--
til in the end we are broken open weeping with the joy of it,
Wounded and healed in the same instant.

And all that is left is the love.
Not our love.
But the love.

The love that is witness to the scars on a new man's chest,
the smile on a gay man's lover,
two feminine hands entwined at the bar.

The woman within the man and the man within the woman.

The tears within the Pride.

~Roz, 6/27/08
Pride Week, SF

Erotic Asphyxiation

Roz — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:47:00 GMT

Erotic asphyxiation, according to Jay Wiseman, is “the application of suffocation or strangulation to a clinically significant degree for the erotic enjoyment of at least one of the participants.” Mr. Wiseman is the author of “SM 101: a Realistic Introduction,” which is now on it's second edition and has sold over 80,000 copies.

Jay Wiseman is a good example of how a regular looking, likable guy can be into some seriously edgy stuff. He quite literally wrote the book on S&M, but even he won't mess with breath play.

Usually, Jay said, when there is a risk in SM, there is a precaution to mitigate that risk. “To reduce the possibility of bad outcome A, use Precaution B,” he likes to say. But there's a problem. For erotic asphyxiation, there is no Precaution B.

And Jay ought to know. He had 2 years of medical school, and was an emergency medical technician with training in advanced cardiac life support. He's also a lawyer, and now he's an expert witness in cases involving erotic asphyxiation. It may be safe to say that he is the top expert in the nation on this particular sexual phenomenon.

Why is breath play so dangerous? Well apparently, most of the time when people die from the practice, it is from cardiac arrest, not from deprivation of oxygen to the brain. And cardiac arrest can happen almost instantly after cutting off someone's air supply for a number of reasons, none of which are predictable at this point in time.

Many people who die from erotic asphyxiation do so alone. “Scarfing” is one word for the practice of cutting off the breath while masturbating. But some die with a partner, and these partners can often incur criminal charges, including murder. Even people who have engaged in breath play many times without incident cannot predict with certainty, or anything close to it, that they will not die the next time around.

Wiseman lists five behaviors where he thinks the risks outweigh the possible benefits. They are: breath play, gun play (Russian Roulette and the like), chest punching (which can stop your heart instantly), and ball kicking (some otherwise healthy people have heart attacks from a reaction of the vagal nerve to the sudden, severe pain). He also mentions that the number one cause of emergency room visits for SM practitioners is highly restricted bondage with poor or no supervision. Some people literally get stuck for days in bondage that can cut off air supply or blood supply, sometimes leaving them permanently injured.

Some folks who are into asphyxiation have bitched about the idea that they might want to think before they choke. Even members of my class were unclear how to be sex-positive while possibly warning people about this behavior.

I see no conflict at all. Being sex-positive does not mean being stupid. And sex isn't the only thing I'm positive about. Human life, for instance. I kinda like it.

For more information see Jay's website at www.jaywiseman.com.

Orgasmic Birth

Roz — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:17:00 GMT

OK, I want to acknowledge right off the bat that this subject may freak some people out. First of all, we like to equate motherhood with apple pie, not sexuality. And certainly not orgasm. But this is an unnatural split. Women of all ages are sexual beings. And sexuality is what creates childbirth. Apparently, some women have orgasms while in the process of labor. How can this happen?

Physiologically, it's actually more intuitive than one would think. Contractions of the uterus during childbirth are similar to those that happen during orgasm. Also, the pressure on the birth canal and the G Spot in and of themselves can cause pleasure or orgasm. In addition, the hormone oxytocin, which is released during orgasm, plays a crucial role in the birth process. It helps to ease the pain of labor, and is critical in the mother feeling bonded to the baby after birth.

What I find most interesting is that this pleasure vs. pain concept is not simply something that happens spontaneously. Perhaps as a logical extension of the natural birth movement, a growing number of women are now re-imagining childbirth as an ecstatic event, rather than merely painful, marathonic ordeal. Women are in discussion about seeing contractions as intensity rather than pain. And some women are ultimately able to transform labor into an amazing, soul expanding event where they can experience ecstasy along with the pain.

In class we watched the most amazing birth movie I have ever seen. It made me cry, and impacted me for hours afterward. It was a 15-minute film called Birth Day, made by a midwife who had her home-birth filmed. It was a beautiful event that included the participation of her whole family.

This was not your average “Miracle of Life” movie. This woman took a walk with her family on the morning she went into labor. The camera shows she and her husband walking over green fields in Mexico where she lives, and through a stream. They went back home later, and she had 3 helpings of rice and beans. This is unheard of in a hospital birth, where they don't allow you to eat, in case you need a C-section. Of course the problem here is that birth is a marathon event, requiring all of a woman's strength and energy. Imagine trying to do that with no fuel? No wonder so many women in hospital births are completely exhausted and unable to push at the end, when they need it the most. So it is that the preparations for a C-section can often create the need for one.

Watching this woman's labor was a revelation. She walked around the house with her husband, who walked backward while holding her hands. Her eyes were unfocused, internal. She described the contractions as worse when she was walking away from her husband, but when she was walking toward him “It was like the sun was trying to burst out of my belly. I felt swollen with our love.”

Here children were a part of the process, as well. Her eight year old son was encouraging her at the end, saying, “Comon Mom! You can do it!” And when the baby came out, the whole family was present. The littlest boy was saying, “It's our baby! It's our baby!” Their interactions were so intensely intimate and loving, I found myself streaming tears. When I looked around me, many of my classmates were crying as well.

I was not only intensely moved by the film, I was also saddened at how far from a natural process we have let birth become.

(for more information on ecstatic/orgasmic birth, contact Dr. Danielle Harel)

Communication Revolution!

Roz — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 16:44:00 GMT

I've been a in a class called Advanced Practical Skills workshop, which explores how to put the theories of Sexology into practice, whether it be clinical practice or education.

The last part of class was a role play. We were asked to think of professional situations where we needed help, and students suggested different scenarios for role plays. Maggie Rubenstein, a pioneer in the bisexual movement, Sexologist, and an amazing woman, led the role plays. I brought up the idea of dual relationships as a possible problem.

Dual relationships is a specific issue in ethics in any kind of professional counseling. The idea behind it is that a clinician should, in general, try to avoid having dual relationships of any kind with a client. A client, for instance, should not also be your barber, your hairdresser, your cousin's wife, or, for that matter, your lover. Your clinical relationship should come first, lest problems of money or emotional entanglements of other types interfere with the counseling.

This philosophy is, of course, very important, and yet has many practical drawbacks. In small towns, for instance, a counselor cannot necessarily avoid dual relationships. A client may be the only barber in town, or the only bank manager in town, or the town librarian. When everybody knows everybody, it's much more difficult to keep the clinical relationship completely and totally free of any other type of interaction.

This philosophy of professional distance in order to preserve the clinical efficacy of a counseling relationship is also one reason why ethics committees everywhere recommend that clinicians do not reveal personal things about themselves. And herein lies my issue with Sexology and professional distance.

Sexual communication is the issue I am most passionate about right now. It may seem a simple topic (though not easy), and yet it is key to just about everything. Communication, I have told my students over and over again, IS the relationship. It's not just that communication makes for good relationships, it actually IS the relationship itself. So sexual communication, too, IS the sexual relationship. Not being able to talk about sex in an open, honest way basically guarantees problems at some point (or many points).

Here's the problem: the easiest way for me to model this to my clients and students is to talk openly about sex. No, I don't need necessarily to go into graphic detail, and no, I don't have to say what I have done vs. what I simply have knowledge of. BUT. As a Sexologist, I find it more and more difficult to draw a line between what is appropriate to withhold because it would interfere with my counseling or my teaching, and what I am withholding simply because the culture is one of shame and I am kowtowing to that particular social norm.

When I was on the air in Hartford, and had a radio show that was about love and sex, I openly talked about sex with the other host. We created sexual topics, shared our personal experiences, and it was amazing how it opened people up. We had calls from people who have never called a radio show before, emails from people who were grateful for the information and eager for more, calls from people who told us that they sat in their cars in the driveway to hear more of what we were saying even though they were home and tired and wanted to go to bed.

The culture is eager for sex-positive discussion. And I have found that creating sex-positive discussion sometimes calls for giving information that is clearly (or inferentially) revelatory about myself.

So what's a therapist to do?

I am proud of my clinical skills. I am proud of my clinical accomplishments. But I am, first and foremost, an educator. I cannot stay silent in support of a social more that I don't think is healthy anymore. I suppose I will simply have to keep speaking up. I will say what I want to say. And let the chips fall where they may.

consent

Roz — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:56:00 GMT

I'm back in San Francisco. It's sunny and 80 degrees, which never happens here. Which is why I am making this entry short.

I'm going to start my Sexological Blog up again now that I'm at school for another 3 weeks. I'll be writing about what I am learning and my reactions to it.

Right now I have been thinking about the concept of consent, and what it really means. I'm formulating an idea that there are several different levels of consent. After all, the more awareness you have, the more deeply you can consent to something. And the more your consent means.

For instance, for many years the age of consent has been debated. The reason for this seems obvious: children have undeveloped judgment, and therefore, limited knowledge of what they are consenting to.

But I am curious about the opposite. Do adults, then, gain a potential for greater and greater ability to consent? Or, to put it another way, can we reach deeper and deeper levels of consent as we reach deeper and deeper levels of awareness? As we become more aware of both the possible consequences and the possible benefits of our actions, do our choices become more meaningful?

Would it be more meaningful for me, for instance, at age 41, to say yes to someone I know would break my heart, knowing that the experience would still be rich, and deep, and worth every moment? Is it potentially easier for someone who is older or more experienced to consent, knowing that they have lived through the pain of heartbreak or failure and survived? Even thrived?

Of course, I say potentially for a reason. Age does not automatically bring wisdom and open-heartedness. Many people will live to my age and well beyond, but will not take painful experiences as growth opportunities. Instead, they will avoid the pain.

However, being the optimist that I am, I believe most of us are bigger than that. Most of us reach beyond our pain and see the experiences of life as the payoff, not the price, of living.

As for me, I have adopted a philosophy of saying yes more often than saying no to many things in my life. Having spent all of my childhood and most of my young adult life in the world of No, I find this way of living infinitely more satisfying.

Swingtown

Roz — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:11:00 GMT

I watched the pilot episode of Swingtown last night. The show aired on CBS last week, but we watched it online, which was fun because we got to pause it whenever we wanted to comment to each other about what we thought.

I liked the show for a lot of reasons. GO CBS for creating something original! In addition, the subject matter is controversial. We read the posts on CBS's website about it and I found myself laughing a lot. Several people were "outraged" and "disgusted", and one woman claimed she was going to get the show taken off the air because "I have young children."

Replies to her were identical to my own, internal ones: Lady, what are your "young" kids doing up at 10 o'clock at night? One guy was right on the money when he asked her if she had ever launched a protest against a soap opera, where people regularly lie, cheat and murder. And this all happens on daytime TV. It appears that cheating is more acceptable to watch than swinging, where all parties are consenting and there is no deception involved. Interesting!

I am also amused by the fact that people have such a fit over what is, in the end, a story. Some people were offended by the drugs shown. Well, it was the 70's. To ignore the drugs done (and the consequences of that) is to show a very incomplete picture of the period. VERY incomplete.

I am excited that CBS has created a show that depicts an alternative lifestyle. But I'm cynical. I have a hard time believing that they will remain open-minded in their depiction of this sexual expression. If they are true to network form, they will punish these characters for their evil ways through plot twists as a way to appease anxious viewers who can't handle such a dramatic challenge to the mainstream thinking about relationships.

Only time will tell.

Watching Sex: About the effects of Porn

Roz — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:46:00 GMT

I am reading "Watching Sex," a book about why men view pornography, and what they get out of it.

In the past, many feminists have written about pornography as a horrible thing that causes men to objectify women, which could then lead to a slippery slope, ending with the abuse of women. I never bought this argument, because I could see that it wasn’t that simple. It certainly didn’t square with my experience of pornography. Most of the men that I knew viewed some type of adult material, and most of them were nice guys who treated women just fine. (Not to mention the fact that many women enjoy pornography as well).

The more I read about these ideas, and the more I research, the more I find some very poor research that claims pornography causes objectification of women, and the more I find good research that finds that porn has no effect on male aggression toward women.

One study that has been used to "prove" that porn causes men to see women as "things" is one called "Treating women as sexual objects: Look to the (gender schematic) male who has viewed pornography." (McKenzie, M. et al Personality Soc. Psych. Bul. 1990 16: 296-308.) They showed some men an adult movie, then had them interviewed by a woman. Surprise! These men were "significantly more sexually motivated" than the men who didn’t watch porn. They also noticed more about the interviewer's appearance. This study has been quoted to give evidence that porn causes men to treat women as objects. But it seemed to me simply to show that porn may make men hornier right afterward.

Uh. Yeah.

Another study had men view violent porn, non-violent erotic porn, and neutral stimuli. They even had a female researcher provoke them. They were then allowed to give her an electric shock or respond to her verbally. Even after being provoked, no aggression or anti-female attitudes were in evidence.

I am still reading about this. I have a lot more to do. I am creating a presentation called "The Pros and Cons of Pornography" to present at colleges. But so far, it seems to me that many of these "feminist" researchers are wrong.

Pre-Orgasmic Women

Roz — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:23:00 GMT

There were many great things about school this trimester. I made new friends, met new people. One of them was Rebecca Chalker, who wrote a fantastic book called The Clitoral Truth that I think every woman, AND every man who has sex with women, should read. I like Rebecca, she's great. I'm very excited that I'm getting to have contact with her, given the great work she has done.

Beyond that, though, the greatest thing about school this time was women's group. This class taught the students how to run a group for women who have never had an orgasm. In the process of learning how to help pre-orgasmic women (the method is supposed to be 96% effective), all of the women in the class had epiphanies about our own sexuality.

For one thing, I finally read the Hite Report. Granted, the Hite Report has a lot of drawbacks. It can really only be said to speak for one particular group of women, mainly. And it is older. HOWEVER. Having said that, we all got so much out of it that we are still talking about it weeks later.

The Hite Report is another book I recommend to all women. Period. It's a compilation of narrative answers to questions put to women in a survey, with their answers shown verbatim. The impact of this is amazing. You end up reading, over and over again, the experiences of other women sexually, in great detail. And it has the effect of helping you to understand what is "normal" in a way that nothing else has, for me, to date. Not Kinsey, not Master's & Johnson, nobody.

What does your orgasm feel like? Exactly which parts of your body feel it when you are in the excitement phase? How EXACTLY do you masturbate? (positions of arms, legs, hand movements, use of toys, use of water, position of body)...on and on and on).

The effect of reading all of this material is impossible to describe. I could have told you, prior to this, that clitoral stimulation is the only way to orgasm for almost all women, and the ONLY way to orgasm for most women (70% of women who come during intercourse are using clitoral stimulation to do it). But I could not have told you that I had been convinced by cultural norms and biased upbringing to believe that there is something sort of...you know...inferior about that. That the REAL goal should be coming during intercourse with no exterior stimulation.

I thought I was beyond that. I mean, I am well aware that the vagina is NOT the analogous structure to the penis, the clit is. But reading the books and taking the course made me realize just how brainwashed by our culture we actually are. If I, a therapist, sex educator for many years, and now student of Sexology, didn't know how conditioned I was, how can the average woman? And, more importantly, how does this conditioning impact our sexual pleasure and our sexual play?

As a group, we were very fired up about it. As therapist and an educator, I can't wait to put it into action.

The Way Guys Talk About Sex

Roz — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:53:00 GMT

We had the greatest discussion in my class yesterday. I was talking about the differences in how men and women talk, or do not talk, about sex. But I learned something really interesting from the men in my class.

I was saying that in general, guys don't talk to each other about sex. The exception is young men, if they are bragging. Students agreed. "I hit that," is a common expression that sets most women's teeth on edge.

But one student pointed out that often what this type of talk is is a way for guys to communicate with each other about what they are doing, or to ask what is normal, without sounding like they don't know what they are talking about. So what sounds like bragging from the outside might actually be a hidden question, like, am I the only one who likes this? Or, has anyone else done this?

I loved this conversation because it really shed a new light on things for me. Women, especially young women, will often tell each other every graphic detail, move for move, of a sexual encounter.

"And then, he did THIS... and then this...and then this...OH MY GOD! it was amazing!"

Or, more unfortunately, "Oh my God can you believe this guy did THIS? Do guys LIKE that?"

Young women tend to ask each other sexual questions along the way. Have you ever tried this? Do you think I'm weird? Has your guy ever asked you to do this? How do you have an orgasm when you're on the bottom?

But guys, apparently, are much more subtle. They use jokes and humor, as well as code words, to communicate with each other about what they are doing and to attain a sense of normalcy or competence sexually. The male students in my class gave me several examples of the code words that they use with each other.

I loved this discussion. Because it is all too easy to listen to a group of young guys describing their sexual exploits and to shame them for bragging. But young women, who reveal many more details, are not seen as betraying intimacy by doing so. Maybe all that any of us is trying to do is simply understand and be understood.

Using Vibrators With Partners

Roz — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 04:51:00 GMT

Today when I got to school I heard 2 students presenting their dissertations to our classes. (Not defending them to profs, just presenting them to us).

The first woman had a presentation all about vibrators and the use of them as a
sexual aid. There was more to it than that, but it was eye-opening. She started out discussing the stats: only 30% of women have ever had an orgasm from intercourse alone. Most women need some other stimulation. Then
she went on to discuss how the use of vibrators, either with or without a
partner, has been proven over and over again to increase the frequency and
intensity of orgasm in almost all women (forgot the percentage, but it's high).
Most women who have never had an orgasm can have one after they have practiced with a vibrator for awhile.

Despite all this, many, many women don't regularly use a vibrator during sex
with a partner, even when orgasm with a partner is not that easy. Women (and
men) have an ingrained bias against using toys with a partner for orgasm. Themes
were consistent:

1. They felt it was unnatural, were hesitant about introducing a mechanical
object to lovemaking.
2. They were concerned they would become dependent on it, and never have an
orgasm from anything else.
3. they weren't sure they were entitled to have that much pleasure.
4. They were worried that the vibrator would somehow replace a partner or
interfere with a relationship.
5. They were nervous about how to talk to their partners about introducing the
vibrator into sex.

The reason this was so eye opening for me is that I related to a lot of it! I
didn't realize it but I have my own bias against using vibrators during sex,
because of subtle messages I have received from partners about it that they felt
it was unnatural or unnecessary.

I was thinking that I have struggled lately with this place I get to sometimes
where I can't come, but I can't come down, either. It's not fun. I end up with
"blue eggs" as I call it, because I get a crampy sort of pain in my ovaries and
it's painful as well as sad. So I'm here thinking, wow. Why haven't I ever
thought about using a vibrator for that? I'm pretty sure it would work, and that way it can be something to do together.

Some classmates and I have plans to go to Good Vibrations sometime in the next couple of days for new toys. Viva Las Vibes.

Porn Vs. Real Sex on Film

Roz — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 04:31:00 GMT

I'm back in San Francisco, learning more and more about my favorite subject. Today and yesterday I attended a course called S.A.R. This stands for Sexual Attitude Restructuring. Among other things, we watch a TON of short movies, most of which involve real people in real relationships having real sex.

It's quite different from watching porn. In porn, you have actors having sex with actors, in a way that is meant primarily for the camera and the viewer, not for the pleasure of the participants. The idea is to titillate the audience, and to make an attractive scene for people to get turned on by. This, in turn, makes money. It isn't wrong, in my book, but it has its drawbacks.

In adult sexual educational and art films, the aim is to see real people who are in relationship having sex in various ways. I am struck by how different these experiences are. For one, the people in the educational films are not necessarily picked because they are universally attractive. But we noticed as a class that when we had some back story on who they were, we found them much more attractive, and found that the films turned us on even when we didn't find the people that visually appealing. It just became less important.

The other thing that is so interesting about these films is that they are much more instructive for good sex. Pornography, after all, is shot so that people can see the action. But good sex usually doesn't look like that. Most of the time, when real people are having good sex in real life, their bodies are much closer together than in porn flicks, where the bodies are deliberately kept more separate so that we can see a penis going in and out. This is true in sex with 2 men, but even more true in sex where at least one partner is a woman, because of the clitoral stimulation needed for optimal pleasure.

There's also a hell of a lot more variety in real life. People love variety, and sex has infinite nuances. The longer you've been in relationship, the more potential you have for exploring new things with your partner or partners.

I have had students tell me they watch porn for technique. I practically shriek at them, for the love of God, man, no! Most women I know appreciate a hell of a lot more sensuality and versatility than you EVER see in a porn film.

The last thing I want to say is that watching real people have sex is beautiful, even when the people aren't. The looks of naked joy and love on people's faces are truly amazing. And, unlike porn, I never get sick of watching that.

Roz's Sexological Blog Continues

Roz — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:14:00 GMT

I'm headed back to San Francisco tomorrow for school. I'll be attending lectures and classes on Sexual Strategies in Hypnosis, Sexual Strategies for Safety & Pleasure, Sexological Body Work, vibrators and how they impact or assist in a woman's sexual experience, Spirituality & sexuality in Dance, warring views on sex education, surrogate therapy and gay/lesbian/bi historical archives.

Once I'm there I'll post daily about what I am learning and what I am thinking about. Feel free to read along!

Ejaculation Wars

Roz — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:13:00 GMT

OK, girls! On your mark, get set...ejaculate!

Aw, c'mon, whassa matter? Can't do it? Don't you know that you're not a real woman until you do? Haven't you heard that orgasms are a million times more amazing when you ejaculate? All of the cool girls are doing it.

Unless it's all a bunch of bull. Maybe it's just a shitload of crazy feminists trying to be like men.

Frankly, I'm a bit tired of hearing about it talked about as if it's a sport. Some women brag about how far they shoot. That's not really boasting, though! It's just "educational". They're just sharing their experience.

For me, I'm not really all that interested. All the breathing and bearing down, why? So I can wet the bed?

I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I think it's cool that women can ejaculate. I know some women who produce copious amounts of the stuff, and squirt it far and wide. Their partners love it. But some of them get sick of having to clean up after themselves.

I just don't want this ejaculation thing to become the new way to beat the shit out of ourselves. Like multiple orgasm. Some women do, some women don't. I have had orgasms, and I have had multiple orgasms, and to be honest, I don't have a preference. I really don't. Because some of my single orgasms have blown some of my multiple experiences out of the water. For that reason, I ain't jumping on the squirting bandwagon.

First of all, most women probably do ejaculate. Meaning, fluid from the urethral sponge gets emitted during sexual arousal. One study from Spain measuring certain chemicals women's fluid pre- and post-orgasm suggests that this is probably the case. But a lot of us just trickle, we don't spurt. We end up with big spots on the bed, we just figure it got there the old fashioned way. And we don't realize it's not from the vagina.

Also, as in men, ejaculation and orgasm are two separate phenomenon, two separate events. Learning this is the first step in teaching men to be multiply orgasmic. But it's true in women, as well. Women can ejaculate without orgasm, just from arousal. Knowing this is important, because it can make us feel more comfortable if we are natural spurters. Just bring a towel with you, and keep going.

The Anatomy of the Clitoris

Roz — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:48:00 GMT

I've heard forever that women's reproductive systems are much more complex than men's. The more I read about both systems, however, the more baffled I am by that statement. What seems more and more apparent to me is the similarity of each sex to the other. It seems like every time we find out something new about women, we can find a corollary in men.

What does seem to be true is that women's systems are a lot harder to see at first glance. And I'm not just speaking of internal organs. I'm talking about the clitoris, which, as it turns out, has eighteen (yes, eighteen!) separate parts.

The book I am reading is called The Clitoral Truth, by Rebecca Chalker. And it is truly, truly enlightening. I find myself aha!-ing all over the place. I'm starting to feel that everyone ought to read this book. I suppose gay men might be less interested than anyone else, but anyone who either A) is female, sleeps with, or wants to sleep with females, should order a copy, pronto.

I already knew that most anatomy books are wrong when they point out the clitoris. For that matter, they leave out several major structures altogether. And the new books just keep blindly copying the old.

Here's a couple of cool things I found out.

1. I've always sworn that I could feel my ovaries when I orgasm. Especially really GOOD orgasms. I knew that the uterus played a role in orgasm but I didn't know how. I certainly knew nothing about the ovaries having anything to do with it. But it turns out that there is a ligament that attaches the glans of the clitoris directly to the ovaries. No shit! That blew my mind. I love to know that I have not been imagining things all these years.

2. The labia minora (inner lips) are actually a part of the clitoris. I knew that the clit was much bigger than the glans of it. The glans is the part you always see in textbooks, mislabeled "clitoris". It's not the whole clit anymore than the glans, or head, of the penis is the whole penis. But I never knew that the inner lips were actually clitoral tissue. No wonder they feel so good.

3. There is also a ligament that attaches the inner lips (remember, that's clit) to the uterus. Cool! This also explains some of the sensations at orgasm. The uterus does contract at orgasm, but who knew it was actually connected directly to the clit? Apparently, Rebecca Chalker. Thanks, girl!

I feel a duty to pass this, and so much more about what I have learned anatomically, along. I'm going to set up a workshop, open to all, review Chalker and compare our systems. Because guys have so many different areas to love, too, and we tend to focus on only 3 or 4 of them.

Then we can truly practice "How do I love thee? Let me count the ways..."

Jealousy

Roz — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:41:00 GMT

I've been a counselor, a marriage & family therapist, and a teacher. I've been a professor, a professional trainer, and a mentor. I've been a retreat leader. I have led workshops on relationships. But I have never encountered such an enlightening study of the phenomenon of jealousy as I have in the book “Polyamory: the New Love Without Limits", by Deborah Anapol.

Polyamory (often shortened to “poly”) is a practice or philosophy. The basic tenet is that having multiple love relationships at the same time is not only possible, but desirable, for all sexes. Some people feel it is a relational or sexual orientation. Some feel that it is neither, and that most people are naturally polyamorous, but that societal norms and emotions hold us back.

One such emotion is, of course, jealousy. It makes perfect sense, of course. My guess is that if jealousy didn't exist, we might all just be polyamorous. What else would stop us so completely in our tracks?

Anapol notes that jealousy is the least studied of human emotions. She observes shrewdly that Daniel Goleman's bestseller, Emotional Intelligence, doesn't even address it. This seems wildly unlikely to me. After all, jealousy can break up a marriage, a friendship, a business partnership, a professional opportunity. Why wouldn't it be discussed?

She also says that jealousy may be biologically based, but what we choose to be jealous about is cultural. This seems likely to be true. Most women in America would never agree to a polygamous marriage, where their husbands were able to have more than one wife. But this practice is common in many other cultures, often accepted and even embraced.

This study of jealousy is very thorough. Anapol, quoting Ron Mazur, breaks jealousy down into several types.

Possessive jealousy is triggered by the belief, unconscious or conscious, that we own someone else. We believe that, since they are with us, we have a right to control or put limits on their sexual behaviors. This often extends to other behaviors, too. Many people feel that once they are married or in a committed relationship, their partner should no longer socialize with people of the opposite sex, or flirt with them, or spend time with old lovers. There is some (often) unspoken belief that says, “You are mine. You belong to me.”

Exclusion jealousy is a jealousy that is triggered by feeling that one's partner is having more fun with someone else. The desire for inclusion is key.

Competition jealousy is the idea that your partner will be more popular than you with other people. Some poly people feel jealous when their partner gets more dates than they do, for instance.

Ego jealousy is about feeling bad that your partner wants someone else, because of how it will make you look. It's not the idea of sharing the partner that bothers people in this situation, it's the idea that the fact their partner wants someone else will make them appear undesirable.

Finally, she lists fear jealousy. All jealousy is based on some type of fear. But the fear jealousy discussed here is the one that most of us think about when we contemplate open relationships: what if she/he leaves me for someone else?

This one is the one I identify with the most. I've never been very jealous. But any time I have been, it's been fear of losing someone.

Anapol states that jealousy is not a sign of love, it's the opposite of it. To be jealous is to be fear filled, and it's impossible to be openly loving while you're full of fear. She posits that overcoming jealousy is a tremendous challenge, and is good for us as people. We come out stronger and more loving than ever before, once we have battled the green-eyed monster.

So are poly people weird, unusual, freaks, or just more loving? Are they afraid of commitment, as a lot of people think? Or are they strong people who face the demons that most of us dare not, and come out on top?

Sex: Baseball, or Golf?

Roz — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 01:47:00 GMT

A good friend of mine has been dating and was teased this week by a guy who said something about getting to second base. Then she said to me, "What is second base? I can't remember!"

I told her it was touching boobs. To which she replied, "Then what's first?"

I laughed and said "Kissing!" Remember kissing?

She was nonplussed. And I was highly amused. At this stage of our lives, sex has become a lot more complex and creative than the baseball metaphor would allow. So let's see...shall I beat this unbreathing equine further? I really think I must.

For one thing, home base is different for everybody. Mine changes, actually. I don't always want to end a lovemaking session with intercourse. So how to make that work? I suppose orgasm could be home base, but not everybody has them, and not everybody needs to have them every time they have sex. For argument's sake, though, I guess orgasm could be home base for me. I'm kind of fond of the phenomenon.

OK, so if orgasm is home base, then we need a helluva lot more bases than four. I stopped counting how many parts of my body cause me orgasm, it's just rather endless. Also, sometimes there's not a lot of my body involved, just my brain. I guess this really leaves baseball behind as a sport that could really describe sex.

On the other hand, baseball is one of the few popular sports that has no time limit. I like that. Sure, a quickie can be fun, but hmm...what about those all night sessions, or the afternoon delight?

So is there a better game? Muse. Muse. Muse.

Hey! What about golf? For one thing, it's terribly laid back. No time limit on this game. But it's also more cerebral than baseball. There's a lot more strategy. And, not to be too graphic, but we are trying to get something in a hole, aren't we?

What else? Well, the courses keep changing. I suppose baseball also has mutliple fields, but they're woefully similar. An infield, an outfield, 4 bases, a couple of dugouts.

Golf courses, like women, show much more variety. A good golfer should then therefore be familiar with the fact that each one is unique, and each brings her own special challenges and delights. Would you compare the voluptuous Pebble Beach to the elegant St. Andrews? Well, of course not. Point made.

With the invention of the golf cart, technology is is completely acceptable in getting one closer to the green. Nothing wrong with speeding something along if you're having fun while you're doing it. Especially if it allows the boys to play a little longer. Hey, I have come to love my toys...so to speak. I like this metaphor more and more all the time.

In golf, strokes, not hits or runs, are the name of the game. How convenient! I'm not crazy about the fact that the fewer strokes you use, the better you are, but then again, if a person is talented, then quality is of course much more important than quantity. And a man who knows just how to line up a stroke, well...he's already half way there. And so am I.

There is, alas, one last and very important bone (cough) of contention here between golf and baseball. I really should end this metaphor war with the expected. Let's face it, those big bats are an obvious plus for America's favorite pastime. I know that there's been a current controversy about aluminum vs. woody, but I think, in the current discussion, it must be obvious which one most girls would prefer.

Then again, I don't know that golf necessarily comes out the loser, even here. There's the putter (yeah, I've met a few of those), the driver (oooh), and the woods. The woods are most commonly 3 woods or 5 woods, but, ahem...there are also 7 woods and 9 woods. How adventurous. Finally, for accuracy, we have the wedges. All in all, there must be dozens of different clubs to choose from for every conceivable situation. Let's see baseball try that.

Senators and Sex

Roz — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:02:00 GMT

Politics and Sex! Which is juicier?

This week in the news, Senator David Vitter was caught having used an escort service run by an infamous D.C. Madam. Surprise, surprise. This particular Senator was--no, really??-- a "Family Values" kinda guy.

Another one to enjoy the Madam's charms was Randall Tobias, the deputy Secretary of State. Tobias is seen as particularly hypocritical because he was in charge of the Bush Adminstration's Agency for International Development, and as such, was responsible for allocating funds for, among other things, HIV prevention. Under his direction, an "ABC" model of sexual health was promoted: "A" for Abstinence, "B" for Be faithful to your partner, and "C" for Condoms if all else fails. Organizations who refused to preach abstinence first or use this model did not receive money. I guess the Deputy Secretary never learned his alphabet.

This type of thing gives rise to lots of outrage. People get disgusted by the hypocrisy, but in fact, it's really elementary, psychologically speaking. Thomas Moore, quoting Freud, said that "we display most outrageously and obsessively that which we do not fully possess or have deeply at our disposal."

Or, if you like, we teach best what we most need to learn. That goes for preaching, too.

It's also known as "projection." We project onto others those qualities we dislike in ourselves. When people get rabid about an issue rarely has to do with the issue itself. It has to do with their own discomfort with their inner shadow. We don't own those nasty little secrets we have, it's easier to point the finger.

What I think is more at issue here than sex is the whole Family Values label. Since when does a Senator put his family first? They never see them. Most of them are career politicians whose kids barely know them.

I'm not saying that's wrong or right. Some people choose to serve their country, and that is their priority. Soldiers, for instance, put country before family concerns on principle. That's a personal choice. But you don't see a heck of a lot of soldiers screaming about family values, either. They're too busy dying for their country to worry about other people's bedroom behavior.

I get tired of hearing politicians of all parties getting on their high horses about anything. Every time I see a guy like Tobias foaming at the mouth about Family Values, I figure he's got some sexual skeletons in his closet.

Billy Shakespeare said it best: Methinks he doth protest too much.