Recently in Sex Category

You know, a common misconception people have about my work - especially when they see the book title The Purity Myth - is that because I argue that women shouldn't be held up to some bizarre virginal ideal, I must be promoting promiscuity. Of course, this line of thinking is incredibly telling - too many people are only able to see women's sexuality within the virgin/whore binary, so a sexuality or identity that's nuanced or complex is beyond them. Because of this misconception, I spend a lot of time during clarifying that of course I don't think virginity is bad thing, and naturally if people want to wait for marriage to have sex (assuming it's legal for them to do so), they should.

But the thing is, that's not entirely true. While I do believe that virginity is all well and good - my concern is really how women's worth is tied to the concept, not whether or not people have sex - I also think there something to be said for arguing strongly for pre-marital sex.

Because, let's face it - if you're going to commit yourself to someone for (presumably) the rest of your life, it's probably best if you know that you're sexually compatible. I don't think this is particularly radical thing to say; in fact, it seems quite logical to me. But somehow, if you suggest that pre-marital sex is a good and maybe even necessary thing (especially if you say those things while being a feminist) you are an evil, evil whoremaker.

Do I think that people can have perfectly wonderful satisfying relationships without having had sex before making a commitment? Sure, I'm positive that happens often. But considering what a huge role sexuality plays in our lives and relationships...well, I'd rather be super duper positive.

Picture via the Abstinence Clearinghouse.

Seems that some people are upset that one of the models on Teen Vogue's November cover is pregnant.

19 year-old Jourdan Dunn isn't visibly pregnant, but talks about her pregnancy in the magazine.

The cover has raised eyebrows among some parents, teens and advocates against teen pregnancy.

"There's no message to send to them that that's not OK. Maybe if she's on the cover to tell them 'Be careful,' that's one thing," said Catherine Essig, a 19-year-old sophomore at Dallas' Southern Methodist University, who was concerned about 15- and 16-year-old readers.

Many advocates said parents should use the cover as a way to talk to their kids about sex and the importance of planning pregnancies for the right moment in their lives.

"Teen parenting isn't glamorous, even if you are a teen model," said Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association.

First of all, I'm not sure why this magazine cover is scandalous and this one isn't. Teen pregnancy is talked about and featured everywhere - from glamorized pics of Bristol Palin to MTV''s 16 and Pregnant. And the fact is, the teen pregnancy is a reality - the teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. went up for the second year in a row for the first time in a decade (thanks, abstinence-only education!). Is it really better to hide the issue?

I understand concerns about making teen pregnancy seem "cool," but I don't think that shaming young women who are pregnant or ignoring their existence is an answer. As Teen Vogue Editor-in-Chief Amy Astley said, "Teen pregnancy is a difficult, real-life issue that Teen Vogue readers (with an average age of 18) are mature enough to be exposed to...[we] felt it was important to support, not punish, Jourdan." Agreed.

Last month, the announcement that Marge Simpson, everyone's favorite overworked and underappreciated cartoon mom, would grace the cover of the November issue of Playboy, caught some observers by surprise. I was not one of them. After all, Playboy has always depicted women as cartoonish and two-dimensional: the only thing that really sets this particular cover girl apart is that she has blue hair and eight fingers.

Women with cartoonish proportions and features are and have long been Playboy's bread and butter. When you open up a copy of Playboy, or of any other mainstream soft core porn magazine, the images of women you're likely to find there are a far cry from reality. Surgically augmented breasts, topiaried pubic hair, uncomfortable-looking poses and often-overzealous airbrushing are porn industry standards and the result is that flipping through a copy of Playboy can leave you with a sneaking suspicion that the women staring seductively back at you aren't quite real. Given its long-standing tradition of printing photos of women whose bodies look like cartoonish exaggerations of the female form, it was only a matter of time before Playboy gave up on human women altogether, and started putting actual cartoons in the centerfold.

Sex toys, books and lube make great gifts. However, a little literacy and label reading can ensure that your purchases feel good and are healthy. The Safe Sex Store in Ann Arbor provides an excellent model for sexual aids and toys that promote positive health outcomes for men and women. Undoubtedly, this result is a feminist one. However, I could have done without boob tubes (devices that enable folks to chug beer from a woman's nipple) and the Halloween costumes that sexualized military women and police officers. Jury is still out on what exactly makes a sex shop feminist. But other than those cons, the pros are excellent.

My shopping experience went a little something like this...

Last month, one of my sorority sisters was getting married. For the first time in my life, I was stumped about what to buy as a wedding gift. I knew my sister's sizes for shoes and lingerie, book preferences, favorite foods and biographic details -- the whole nine yards. But now that I wasn't just buying for her, the whole twosome bit was throwing me for a loop.

House appliances were overdone. Money and gift cards weren't personal enough. So, I did what any sorority girl would do when faced with this situation: I headed to the nearest sex toy store.

It's a beautiful thing to attend a university where safe, affordable sex toys are sold right off campus. One of Ann Arbor's best-kept secrets is that the Safe Sex Store (S3) on South University is a hub for sorority girls who sometimes travel in pairs to buy their big, little, dean, pledge, sands, soror or sister tokens of affection to get her vibe on. The thing is, I wasn't the run-of-the mill customer. I had spent my past summer doing evidence-based research and one of the topics I covered was sex toys and lubricant.

Back in March, we mentioned that the FDA had recently approved a new female condom (FC) for distribution in the U.S.

Well folks, that new female condom has officially hit U.S. markets, and is now available for our all-American consumption. The FC2 is made of a new, thinner, material, is less likely to squeak during use, and is about 30% cheaper than the original FC.

My colleague Audacia Ray has a post up on Akimbo about why this news marks exciting progress for US women's access to safer sex materials.

Now, I know that the FC often gets a bad rap. Previous commenters have touched on some of the many criticisms it often faces- it's not readily available, it's too expensive, it squeaks, it looks funny, the materials' unfamiliar, it's uncomfortable, it's unnatural, it's inconvenient, it's not effective enough, etc. And part of this criticism is understandable because the FC is a relatively new form of contraception and- let's face it- not many of us use FCs on a regular basis, or even know someone who does. How many of us have even seen an FC for sale in a drugstore? Or seen women carrying around FCs in their wallets the way men often do with the male condom?

...by suggesting that straight porn turns boys gay. Huh? Via Broadsheet, it seems that Michael Schwartz is giving advice to folks as to how to deter your child from pornography - tell them it's gay.

He dropped this divine wisdom this weekend at the Values Voter Summit during a panel on "The New Masculinity," which focused on how "feminism has wreaked havoc on marriage, women, children and men" and discussed the need to get "the principles and ideals for a new 'masculinism' right." Part of getting those principles right means inculcating young boys with fear of their own bodies, apparently.

This absurd sound bite surfaced when Schwartz shared an "astonishingly insightful remark" made by a friend of his who suffered for some time from "the malady" of homosexuality: "All pornography is homosexual pornography, because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards." He continued, "Now think about that. And if you, if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he's going to want to go out and get a copy of Playboy? I'm pretty sure he'll lose interest. That's the last thing he wants."

Check out the video:

So feminists and gay folks are responsible for the widespread popularity of pornography. Wait, how does that work again? Because you've completely fucking lost me between homosexuality being "inflicted on people" and the new "'masculinism' right." Looks like he needs to hook up with the MRAs.

I was going to write the second part to this post today, but then something else Miriam Grossman-related - something glorious - happened. I found this site.

Sense & Sexuality is a new website (launched today!) by the anti-feminist organization Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute - you may remember them from when they tried to shut down The Vagina Monologues and bring back the hope chest. They also were in our top ten anti-feminists videos!

The site says its a project of the organization's "Center for Women's Health and Sexuality" - though as far as I can tell, no such center exists outside of the website, and all of the content is based on Grossman's work. Specifically, its a spin-off of the booklet Grossman wrote for the organization last year. Remember? It's the one that told us in pink cursive that "the rectum is an exit, not an entrance." (In fact, they already have a blog post dedicated to the topic!)

I think I can safely say this is the biggest piece of crap website on sex I've ever seen. And that's saying a lot. Between the straight up lies and scare tactics (you can get STDs from mutual masturbation, apparently), the sexism, and the hearts making up the DNA strand on the homepage (cause women are just made for love, not sex) - I don't even know where to start.

Well, maybe I do. From the site's "facts" section...

Why girls feel used after hooking up (seriously): "Girls expect emotional involvement almost twice as often as guys; 34% hope "a relationship might evolve." Guys, more than girls, are in part motivated by hopes of improving their social reputation, or of bragging about their exploits to friends the next day."

Why dudes you sleep with won't remember your name: "When it comes to sex, oxytocin, like alcohol, turns red lights green. It plays a major role in what's called "the biochemistry of attachment." Because of it, you could develop feelings for a guy whose last intention is to bond with you. You might think of him all day, but he can't remember your name."

Why young women should put off education and get knocked up as soon as possible: "[T]ypically a student who always put career first, and is finally getting a Ph.D. at 38 or 40. She's thrilled to reach that milestone, but aches for another: to feel a new life inside her, to give birth."

There's even a section on beer goggles. (How scientific!) Oh and if you're looking for resources, you're in for a treat of Grossman's books, articles, and videos. Activism? Have Grossman speak on your campus! Or you can visit their blog, where all you need to know is indicated in the first blog entry's tags: hookup, regret.

Why not just call it Shame & Sexuality and get it over with?

A new study shows that states that skew towards more conservative religious beliefs tend to have higher rates of teenage girls giving birth. (Shocking, I know.)

Researcher Joseph Strayhorn of Drexel University College of Medicine and University of Pittsburgh says,"We conjecture that religious communities in the U.S. are more successful in discouraging the use of contraception among their teenagers than they are in discouraging sexual intercourse itself."

Now, obviously studies like these have the whole correlation/causation issue going on - but from the work I did write The Purity Myth, this study makes sense to me.

If you grow up in an area where you're taught that sex is bad and contraception is evil (and that it can kill you), when you do have pre-marital sex - as 95% of Americans will - you're much less likely to protect yourself. Not only because you've been taught that condoms cause cancer and other such ridiculousness, but also because you may think that if sex happens in the heat of the moment - and you didn't plan for it like a bad, slutty girl - you're not as tainted.

That is all.

Yesterday, a FDA panel recommended that the agency approve Gardasil - the HPV vaccine - for use in young men and boys. Something tells me that despite the vaccine being recommended for use in boys as young as 9 years old, no conservative organizations are going to bemoaning boys' "lost innocence" or worrying about them becoming big whores.

Related: Quick Hit: The HPV vaccine for boys?
Good news on HPV vaccine?
How safe is the HPV vaccine?
Hit me with your best (HPV) shot

Oh dear. Miriam Grossman - of Unprotected fame (the book that tells young women having sex will make them diseased drop outs) - has a yet another book out: You're Teaching My Child What?: A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Ed and How They Harm Your Child

I found out about Grossman's latest through this column at Townhall that - in the great tradition of unhinged moral panic - suggests that comprehensive sex education wants "to strip our little girls of their natural inclination toward modesty and replace it with an attitude of sexual dominance." Who, me? *bats eyelashes*

Columnist Rebecca Hagelin says that our daughters are "under siege" by those who would teach them about sex and suggest that there is more to life than marriage and babies. You know - feminists.

Make no mistake: this attack on our daughters is also an attack on the nuclear family unit itself. It is an insidiously evil brand of radical feminism that now pervades education and entertainment. If you can warp an entire generation of women into believing that sex is merely a tool to be used for advancement, then you destroy all notions of fidelity, and commitment for both genders. By default, our sons adopt the view that they do not need to be loyal or true in marriage either.

...We are at a crossroads in our nation and the pawn being used by those who seek to check-mate the family - the sacred and basic building block of all civil societies - is a little girl. She will be used and abused and then cast aside as the next little girls are born and brainwashed with ever increasing dangerous messages.

There are steps you must take now to protect and equip your daughter with her own moral authority over those who would abuse her femininity.

What crazy ass sex ed classes has Hagelin been sitting in on?! It's amazing to me how these folks take something as simple as telling the truth about sex and contraception and turn it into a femininity-abusing (what that means) evil indoctrination hell bent on destroying families.

But that's exactly what folks like Grossman would like American parents to think. Let's take a look at what Grossman's past work has asserted so that we can all freak about about....

What Miriam Grossman wants to teach your child!!!:

When girls have sex, it is often at bars or because they're drunk. Also, they're depressed.

The more you have sex, the sadder you become: "As the number of casual sex partners in the past year increased, so did signs of depression in college women." (Cough, bullshit, cough)

Even fictional characters can get herpes: "It's easy to forget, but the characters on Grey's Anatomy and Sex in the City are not real. In real life, Meredith and Carrie would have warts or herpes. They'd likely be on Prozac or Zoloft."

After a one-night-stand, girls are swooning, and guys don't give a shit: "You might think of him all day, but he can't remember your name."

You can say really creepy things about sex, so long as its written in cursive.

Stay tuned for Part 2 when I take you inside Grossman's new anti-sex screed. (But through the front, cause the back is just an exit.)

Check out Virginia Rutter's interesting post over at Girls w/ Pen about the dwindling incidence of infidelity. An excerpt to wet your appetite:

Are people really having less sex? Well, at the very least, it looks like they are having less sex outside of their committed relationships, according to a new study written up in Scientific American. But it also looks like people may be making up for having less sex outside of committed relationships by talking about it more.

On my two week vacation around New England (and Montreal!) I discovered a new feminist sex shop to review, Nomia in Portland Maine. From their website:

Portland's first women owned and operated sensuality boutique.

We opened in February 2004 in order to provide women and men with a comfortable and fun environment in which to explore sex and sexuality. We offer a broad range of literature, from the academic to the erotic, lingerie, hosiery, and the finest adult toys and accessories available.

Nomia made it to my list of favorite feminist sex shops--it was a great place! It's location is discreet, without a storefront. It's up the stairs, but there is good signage outfront. They seem to emphasize discretion, and they had a sign up about "discreet shopper." If you wanted you could give the employee a list of items you wanted and they would collect them and bag them up for you. A nice option for those who might be more shy and not something I've seen in other stores.

The shop was small but well-stocked. They had a big sale section, which is great for those on a budget. They have a lending library of DVDs (always a plus) and a great vintage sex toy display. A large book selection covers the first floor, including books on topics like menopause and cuddling. Plus all the standards perks of a feminist sex shop--you can touch and test display products, no toys that are bad for our bodies, and a really queer friendly selection.

All in all a great store. No online shopping yet, but check back as they are working on that feature.

Previous reviews:
Sugar in Baltimore, MD
Smitten Kitten in Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN
Hysteria in Denver, CO
Early to Bed in Chicago, IL
VaVaVoom in Asheville, NC
Aphrodite's Toy Box in Atlanta, GA

Know another feminist sex shop I should review? Email me at miriamATfeministingDOTcom or leave it in comments.

How's that for a headline.

Reader Philip alerted us to this new study by Swedish researchers who found that a number of men felt that getting an sexually transmitted infection (STI) like chlamydia or HPV was perceived more as a medal of honor or right of passage than a health issue.

The University of Skövde researcher Kina Hammarlund, who is also a midwife, says she was (unsurprisingly) disappointed with the findings:

"Despite all the talk about gender equality, it seems like today's young people are wrestling with the same prejudices and stereotypical gender roles that existed when I was young in the 1970s."

While it's irritating that none of the factual evidence was disclosed (in terms of how many folks were studied, etc.), I still wanted to highlight it because it brings up interesting questions about men, sexual activity and contraception use compared to the stigma on women living with STIs as "damaged goods," etc.

Thoughts?

This weekly Saturday column "Ask Professor Foxy" will regularly contain sexually explicit material. This material is likely not safe for work viewing. The title of the column will include the major topic of the post, so please read the topic when deciding whether or not to read the entire column.

Hi Professor Foxy,

I came out of a 5 year relationship at the beginning of the year, he is the only man I've ever had sexual intercourse with. I'm currently enjoying myself being a free agent - being able to explore my sexuality, pursuing women and men and all types of relationships (not just monogamy).

Despite having quite a lot of opportunities I've not had sexual intercourse with anyone else yet. I caught genital warts/HPV from my first partner, so the big barrier for me in having sex with anyone else is in telling prospective partners and also the big fear of catching something else because of my bad luck with my first sexual partner.

At the clinic they advised me to tell every partner before I sleep with them and to go to the clinic with them if they were worried about catching it, but how does this work in real life? My friends tell me I shouldn't worry about telling someone at the beginning of a relationship if we're using protection (which of course I will), but I know HPV can be passed on through skin to skin contact. I want to be responsible and tell every partner but I really need help in how to broach that subject - especially at the beginning of a casual relationship or in a one night stand.

In my head this has become such a big thing, I feel almost like a leper. I know HPV isn't really a big thing, it's the common cold of STIs but what's the best way of discussing this in the 'heat of the moment'? I know so much about HPV, how do I give someone the information they need - that a large percentage of sexually active people have it, it's linked to cervical and penile cancer, without completely frightening someone to death? I feel like my sex life is on hold while I try to deal with this - despite wanting to go further than kissing and cuddling with partners I can't because I'm scared of being rejected.

On top of this I have a history of OCD and anxiety, so it feels like I take this issue much more seriously than others!

Some practical advice in what to say to partners and how to handle asking questions about others' sexual health would be great!

Thank you,

Worry Wart

Hello Worry Wart -
You clearly know a lot about HPV, but I am going to take a moment to do some background for those who are not familiar with it. First, HPV is the common cold of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). If you are sexually active (anything involving genital contact), you've likely had it. However, just like the common cold, there are many strains of HPV with the majority passing through and out of a person's body before they even know they've had it.

There are some strains that cause genital warts and then others that cause cervical/penile cancers (and increasing evidence shows they also can lead to head and neck cancers). Just to be perfectly clear, these are different strains that cause cancer or cause genital warts. The kind you have causes warts, not cancer. People can have both, but your healthcare provider should have checked.

I appreciate your desire to tell your sexual partners. I agree that you do not have to tell people you are just kissing or possibly thinking about hooking up with about your status. It is not their business and they are not at risk of catching anything.

When you are at the place of considering oral, anal, vaginal penetration, you should tell them. You don't have to give them every single bad outcome, but something to the extent of "before we go any further, you should know I have HPV. The kind that causes genital warts. I checked before we started hooking up and I don't have any visible warts, but I want you to know." Then wait; the next step is up to them. If they are comfortable asking questions, answer them honestly. Respect their decision on what to do next. But, and this is a huge but, they do not have the right to make you feel dirty. People with STIs are not dirty. They are simply people who have an STI. If your potential partner reacts negatively, you learned early this is not someone you want to be active with.

Now people with vaginas can have warts in non-visible places, but a visual scan is important to see any that you can.

I also hear your concern about catching something else. You take a risk when you do any kind of fluid exchange with another person. Oral, anal, vaginal - whatever your pleasure - you take a risk. Using latex barriers helps to lower that risk. I also always recommend doing a scan of your partner's genitals. This sounds very cold and awkward, but before putting your mouth or anything else on another's genitals something kiss the stomach while you look. In life, most things have risks, it is deciding when the gain (be it pleasure, desire, intimacy) outweighs the risks.

Best,
Professor Foxy

If you have a question for Professor Foxy, send it to ProfessorFoxyATfeministingDOTcom.

Don't miss the latest issue of the Scholar & the Feminist Online, guest edited by Janet R. Jakobsen (an amazing professor I had while at Barnard) and Kate Bedford.

According to the New York Times, Gold medalist Caster Semenya, a track and field phenom from South Africa, is undergoing sex-determination testing to confirm her eligibility to race as a woman. The testing is being conducted by the International Association of Athletics Federations, the sport's governing body.

There is plenty of useless speculation and a few fucked up quotations in the article from other athletes:

"These kind of people should not run with us," Elisa Cusma of Italy, who finished sixth, said in a postrace interview with Italian journalists. "For me, she's not a woman. She's a man."

Mariya Savinova, a Russian who finished fifth, told Russian journalists that she did not believe Semenya would be able to pass a test. "Just look at her," Savinova said.

Of course sex can not be determined by looks alone, and gender is not something that we get to decide for others, as Cusma suggests. "These kinds of people" is language taken straight from the bigot's handbook. I think both of these athletes should be asked to do an empathy-determination test, not to mention be schooled in sex, gender, and biology.

Their first reading could be a new book by Gerald N. Callahan, Ph.D.: Between XX and XY: Intersexuality and the Myth of the Two Sexes. He reports that every year more than 65,000 children are born who aren't obviously either boys or girls. He writes, "In truth, humans come in an amazing number of forms, because human development, including human sexual development, is not an either/or proposition. Instead, between 'either' and 'or' there is an entire spectrum of possibilities.'" The book is really beautifully written, highly accessible, and visionary in its own right. For more on this topic, I also suggest Anne Fausto-Sterling.

The ambiguity of sex may not even be at play with Caster Semenya, but the public's reaction to her performance and body are flash points for our continued discomfort with admitting that the world does not come in such simple dichotomies as we safely like to think it does. My heart goes out to Semenya, who meanwhile has to deal with this shit instead of celebrating her victory and reveling in the moment.

Alice Dreger, a professor of medical humanities and bioethics at Northwestern University, appropriately, has the last word in the NYT article, and I'll give it to her here as well: "At the end of the day, they are going to have to make a social decision on what counts as male and female, and they will wrap it up as if it is simply a scientific decision. And the science actually tells us sex is messy. Or as I like to say, 'Humans like categories neat, but nature is a slob.' "

Thanks to so many readers for the heads up.

This weekly Saturday column "Ask Professor Foxy" will regularly contain sexually explicit material. This material is likely not safe for work viewing. The title of the column will include the major topic of the post, so please read the topic when deciding whether or not to read the entire column.

Hi Professor Foxy,

Happy but safety conscious kinkster

Hello Happy Kinkster -

I hear you. While I am often a fan of Mr. Savage's advice, I have to admit that the meeting someone over the internet without a shit-ton of safety precautions feels like a really bad idea.

On the other hand, your needs and desires are clear. There are still sex/kink parties around, but they can be difficult to find and are much more of a private party type these days. So what's a kinky girl to do?

Have an email exchange about what your boundaries and desires are. Discuss how you want this to progress and gage the response. If you are satisfied, move on to the next step: either phone calls or meeting in person. If it is phone calls, keep your inner check in on. Does this still feel right? When and if you are ready, move on to the step below.

I would ask if you have a friend that you are out to about this behavior. If not, I think you need to figure out who you can come out to. If your partner is ok with it, have them play this role. When you place or answer an ad on the internets that describes your kink, at a minimum your friend needs to have all the person's contact information in addition to where you are meeting and setting up pre-arranged times to call. In a best case scenario, when you meet this person your friend is sitting a few seats away and is keeping an eye on things.

I would also carefully lay out boundaries with the potential hook up. First meeting in a completely public place with no chance of sex or sex play. At this meeting, lay out what your boundaries are and what you are and are not willing to do. How does the potential hook up respond? Does she/he agree? Ask probing questions? Seem genuinely respectful?

If all goes well, I would suggest trying to find a public dungeon or sex party to go to with the potential. You should meet there so you have your own transport. See how the potential hook up acts. Same things as before - respectful, genuine?

Since your kink involves a great deal of safety and trust, I would also do ramp up on the activities. If you like being fully trussed up, start off with having sex in which the hook up demands you stay still, but you can still move. Then do feet or hands, and keep moving the action up to where you can get what you desire.

In all of this you need to listen to your gut and listen hard, too many women ignore their instincts in our society-molded desire to please and not to offend. This is about you and your safety.

Best,
Professor Foxy

If you have a question for Professor Foxy, send it to ProfessorFoxyATfeministingDOTcom.

A few months ago, the Guttmacher Institute issued a report that argued that the withdrawal method "deserved a second look." The report combined findings from a few different studies, both qualitative and quantitative, and found that withdrawal is "almost as effective as the male condom -- at least when it comes to pregnancy prevention". The report also found that the use of withdrawal as a method of birth control is underreported, especially to the extent that withdrawal is being used as part of a combination birth control strategy also involving condom usage and rhythm. The authors concluded the report by emphasizing the need for more information about how withdrawal is used "in order to better understand the role of withdrawal as a contraceptive method and to accurately estimate failure rates."

As Miriam pointed out back in May, there are certainly valid reasons that sex educators have been hesitant to promote withdrawal; one obvious one is that it's not effective at all in preventing sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS. This is a big deal, and I by no means intend to ignore or even downplay the aspects of withdrawal that provide insufficient protection for folk in some situations.

Yet, this is no reason to dismiss the entire withdrawal report, which advocates finding out more information about withdrawal- a contraceptive method that is currently being used by millions of people worldwide- to get a better understanding of how people are using it, what its true failure rates are, and how it could be used to more effectively prevent pregnancy.

Despite this seemingly straightforward mandate, the report has caused a lot of controversy since its release in May, and attracted a lot of critics, in the blogosphere and beyond. But what's really alarming about this is that these critics are attacking not only validity of the idea of using withdrawal, but the morality of those who dare to discuss withdrawal as a means of contraception publicly.

I love Mary Roach's books. I think she's awesome, and I totally stole the idea of using quippy footnotes in The Purity Myth from her book Bonk. Listen to her be smart. (More of Roach here.)

Via Pandagon.

I was on the Alan Colmes radio show last week, debating Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association. You may be able to tell that I'm kind of jet lagged and cranky in the segment - at one point I get totally pissed off. (I know, shocking.)

Guttmacher Institute is reporting on a new study of women's contraceptive usage across age ranges.

A new study of women's contraceptive use around the world finds that sexually active 15-19-year-olds are more likely than their 20-49-year-old counterparts to use contraceptives inconsistently and, on average, experience a 25% higher rate of contraceptive failure.

The study's authors, Ann K. Blanc of EngenderHealth et al., believe that compared with adult women, adolescent women face more obstacles to consistent contraceptive use--including feeling embarrassed about seeking out contraceptives, not being able to afford them and not knowing how to use them correctly--and may be more likely to abandon a method and try another if they experience side effects, which often leads to gaps in contraceptive use. The authors also note that, in comparison with adult women, adolescents tend to use methods with higher failure rates, to use methods less effectively and to be more fertile--all factors that increase the risk of unintended pregnancy.

This isn't really surprising data, and while the study acknowledges that contraceptive usage among young women has gone up in many countries, this inconsistent usage could definitely be an issue. This study is interesting because it looks globally at contraceptive usage. Access and education to contraceptives vary widely across the world, depending on the economic situation, political environment and other factors in determining access. The study also points out that demand for contraceptives will only rise as the population increases, and that international health systems are going to have to be significantly improved to adjust to this rise.

You can read the rest of the study here.

Or 'enter', whatever.

A new report from the CDC says that "trends in the sexual and reproductive health of U.S. teens and young adults have flattened, or in some instances may be worsening." Are we really surprised?

Thanks to a decade of misinformation masquerading as sex education, teens are having the same amount of sex, using contraception less, and getting pregnant more.

We're reaping what we've sowed. A 2002 study found that one-third of U.S. teenagers hadn't received any formal instruction about contraception. For those who did learn about contraception - it was all scare tactics. In Me, My World, My Future - a textbook used in public schools across the country - students are told that "relying on condoms is like playing Russian roulette." A Case Western Reserve University study found that Ohio students have been taught that the birth control pill increases young women's chances of infertility later in life. And in 2005, teens at Montana's Bozeman High School were even taught that condoms cause cancer. So why would teens want to depend on something that they're told is not only ineffective, but cancer-causing to boot?

I'm stoked that the new budget has cut funding for abstinence-only education, I really am. But de-funding these programs is not enough. We have to undo the damage that's been done to young people and support real solutions: If we want to lower the teen pregnancy rate, we need to demand that contraception be easily accessible and affordable to young people. Yes - this means condoms in schools and community centers, and emergency contraception being available to teens over the counter. If we want to ensure that teenagers are well-informed, we need to demand federal and state funding for comprehensive sex education.

The purity-pushers are not going anywhere, but this is about more than politics...it's about our health and futures. (And goodness knows I don't know either in the hands of someone who could think up the above shirt.)

This weekly Saturday column "Ask Professor Foxy" will regularly contain sexually explicit material. This material is likely not safe for work viewing. The title of the column will include the major topic of the post, so please read the topic when deciding whether or not to read the entire column.

Dear Professor Foxy,

Thanks!

Hello Feminist Mom -

I think that the first place to start is with your own attitudes and values about sex. Clearly, you have spent some time working out how you want to raise your son and I commend you for this. Do you want him to put sex and caring together? Do you want him to put sex and a serious relationship together? Sex and love?

Your son is seven and it is important to balance your own desire to be open and honest with what is age appropriate for him. It is also important to keep in mind that the best sex education from a parent or guardian is not "the talk," but many, many talks and a shown willingness to answer questions without judgment and to provide resources beyond yourself. I am also heavily invested in what is referred to as "teachable moments." For example, when your son comes home and tells you that his friend has two daddies or when his teacher is pregnant. These are chances to naturally discuss sex and sexuality with your own son. More importantly, it is a chance to impart your values to him.

I worry that in progressive sexual circles, we too often remove values from our conversations, but we have to remember that values are important and can include things like respect and acceptance. The far right and conservatives have claimed the word values for far too long.

So what values do you want to impart to your son? You can describe it as something that two people do when they are older and when they care about each other. He may very well be satisfied with this answer for the beginning. If he presses further, you can give more details: sex is when two people (you can say adult if you want) who care about each other are naked together and touch each other.

What is important here is to separate sex from procreation. When he comes to you and asks how a baby is made or you have one of these teachable moments of your own or another's pregnancy, you can then say it takes a part from a man (semen) and a part from a woman (egg). When a man and a woman have sex, they can make a baby. Then go on to explain that while it does take a part from a man and a part from a woman, families look all sorts of ways and many families do not involve a mommy and a daddy.

One of my favorite, favorite authors on this topic is Robie Harris. Her books, It's Not the Stork!, It's Perfectly Normal, and It's So Amazing, talk about sex and sexuality in kind, age-appropriate, and progressive ways. You can tell they are amazing since they constantly top the list of most banned books. I would buy them for yourself and your son.

What is most important in all of this is that he knows he can ask his mom anything, so as he ages and begins to think about becoming sexually active himself, he knows he can turn to you for help and advice and information about safe sex. You are off to a great start.

Best,
Professor Foxy

If you have a question for Professor Foxy, send it to ProfessorFoxyATfeministingDOTcom.

Anything you say, oh divine one!

Abstinence-only education advocates are not too pleased that their federal funding is pretty much kaput (though I'm still keeping my eye on that "teen pregnancy prevention" money). In fact, they are freaking out.

Leslee Unruh, president of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse and all-around fun person to watch lose their shit, had this to say about losing federal funding:

"We've got news for the condom worshipers, abstinence education is not going away any time soon. Taxpayers will not tolerate their money being used for ideological latex-only programs and the molestation of their children's minds and future."

You know, this is why folks in the virginity movement need to rebrand their image - they can't help but reveal how radical and on the fringe they are. Most American parents want their children taught about contraception; most American women will use contraception at some point in their lives. Calling the majority of the country - who want their kids to learn medically accurate information about sex so they can make healthy decisions - condom worshipers and molesters is simply stupid.

That's why the more media-savvy abstinence-only leaders are now using more mainstream-friendly language and attempting to frame themselves as folks interested in "holisitic approaches" and "healthy lifestyle choices." In fact, last night I was on the Alan Colmes radio show (link forthcoming) debating Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) - and Huber continued to claim that abstinence-only education did teach kids about contraception and gave them all the information they needed to make healthy decisions. It was bullshit sound bite heaven, and it was desperate. (She also referred to comprehensive sex education as condom-only or condom-centered a couple of times; classy.)

While I'm glad to see that these organizations are scrambling, I'm also a bit wary of writing them off completely - sadly, I don't think we've seen the end of Huber or Unruh. And we have to continue to be vigilant on a state and community level. Even now, in California, there's an abstinence-only debate ranging in Sonoma County schools.

So, please, keep up-to-date on what's happening with ab-only nonsense - make sure to check out Advocates for Youth's Amplify and SIECUS (in addition to us, of course!).

Thanks to Rebecca for the link.

I don't know I shouldn't be surprised that there's a iPhone "purity ring" application - after all, I'm all too familiar with the various ways virginity fetish reveals itself. But this still managed to skeeve me.

For just 59p, consumers can download an application that allows them to take a purity pledge and then display a silver ring on their phone to prove their commitment to abstinence.

Because nothing "proves" chastity like an iPhone app. Henry Bennett, director of the company who created the app says, "If you've taken the pledge, you're likely to follow it through."

As we all know, however, the only thing virginity pledges are more likely to make teens follow through will is oral, anal, and unprotected sex. As someone replied to me about the app on Twitter, "Girls who download it are less likely to practice safe texting."

*Headline stolen shamelessly from Ann.

Hey all, I just got back from my pre-wedding honeymoon (fun!) last night and will back to blogging regularly this Wednesday. Until then, I thought I'd share this video of an interview I did with the wonderful Kendall McKenzie of Planned Parenthood about The Purity Myth. Hope you enjoy it.

Disappointing news: Porn is now illegal in the Ukraine.

Ever the optimist, I see a silver lining here. At least the whole "unless it's for medicinal purposes" clause unwittingly points to the health benefits of masturbation :-)

There's a fascinating article in the latest issue of O Magazine on the new trend in Adult Sex Education. Yep, that's right, churches in particular, and plenty of other institutions, are starting to teach adults about sex. Michael Tino, a Unitarian Universalist minister, one of the authors of such a curriculum told O:

You can have the best high school sexuality curriculum in the world, but a lot of critical issues are not going to be addressed in those classes: How do I enjoy my sexuality if I've lost a breast to cancer? How do I manage being a parent and a sexual person? Can I feel sexually satisfied if I don't have a life partner?

It makes so much sense. It also made me slap my forehead and wonder, "Why haven't we thought of this before?" It's nice to see something coming out of the church community with such a holistic view of human health and wellness. It's not just innovative; it's radical. This lil' exchange between two middle-aged women was enough to convince me that the classes are awesome:

Judith admits that she can think of a few good things that result from getting older. "My husband of 13 years always accused me of being frigid because I never had an orgasm with him," she says. "After we split up, I definitely learned I wasn't frigid. Which was a relief. Which was fun."

The women marvel that virtually all of them have had distressful sexual experiences. One says her sex life was "messy," explaining that she means nonlinear. "I was always a little ashamed because I didn't do the perfect progression of first kiss, go steady, first love, first sex," she says. "It's nice to see that all the women were a little out of order."

And then Larry goes and explains why he signed up for the course with his wife of 15 years: "We're past the Kama Sutra part of life. You want to--you need to--broaden the definition of sex. Like the other night, my wife was singing to me, and I said, 'Oh, you're making love to me.'"

Okay, you may not be at the singing=sex stage, but you have to admit that expanding our definitions of appropriate or normal sexual behavior in loving relationships, or solo, later in life is a great thing for everybody. Other women report realizing that there is no "normal" when it comes to genitalia. One woman realized that it was okay that she had a stronger libido than her husband--something she'd always felt shame about. Another finally talked to her husband about his masturbation habits and started to get more comfortable with non-exploitative porn.

My only quips with the piece were that a) there was nothing about sexual assault, which I found really hard to believe and b) the author didn't differentiate the government role in all of this very well. She mentioned the $150 million annually for healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood initiatives, but to my understanding, the majority of this money is not going towards expanding the definition of healthy sexuality but narrowing it.

Speaking of adult sex, Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards (of Manifesta, Grassroots etc.) are chipping away at a new book, this one focused on sex after kids. If you've got some--kids--and are or aren't getting some, then go fill out their survey here. They explain:

In 1957, Betty Friedan and several of her classmates from Smith College created a reunion questionnaire. The responses were so illuminating that Friedan turned it into her ground-breaking 1963 best-seller The Feminine Mystique. Fifty-one years later, we revisited Friedan's original questions to create our own questionnaire in the hopes of shining a light on our generation--and specifically our sex lives and how they do/don't change or evolve once kids enter our lives. We hope you will share and help us to understand our generation as parents.

Apologies for the delay, there were some technical difficulties - PF

This weekly column "Ask Professor Foxy" will regularly contain sexually explicit material. This material is likely not safe for work viewing. The title of the column will include the major topic of the post, so please read the topic when deciding whether or not to read the entire column.

Dear Professor Foxy,

Thanks,
L

Hey L -
Two major thoughts occur to me:

1. How much people want to be normal when it comes to sex. Have sex at the right time. Make the right noises, Smell the right way. And how there really is no normal. The only thing that actually matters is what is right for you.

2. I can't give you a clean answer to have sex or not to have sex. Culturally, we tie a lot of import to THE FIRST ONE for women. While we can go through a lot of feminist deprogramming, that deprogramming does not always reach our own feelings and self-judgments. This is a decision you have to make for yourself, both how much it matters it to you and whether or not to have sex.

What it really comes down to is how much emphasis you place on what you are defining as sex. And I think that the "defining" part is key. I am not sure how sexually intimate you are with your current partner. Are you doing everything but putting penis into vagina? Or are you at the kissing and above the waist groping stage?

If you are at a clothes on or no exchange of bodily fluids or no penetration stage, having sex is a pretty big step and one you do not seem ready to take.

If you are already getting naked, exchanging bodily fluids, etc, you are closer to having vaginal-penile intercourse and it may make more sense to have sex.

I think there is something emotionally safer about having sex with someone who is leaving. No matter how emotional or invested you find yourself afterwards, they are going to be gone and you cannot tie unrealistic expectations to them. Time limited relationships also allow the person to stay closer to perfection. Traits that may later become annoying (leaving the seat up, an obnoxious laugh) are sweet and endearing in only a few months.

You also get to get over your first time jitters with someone who you are not trying to build a long-term relationship with. That can make all the potentially embarrassing moments less embarrassing.

The other side is you may regret it. Regret is a funny thing because there are very few predictors of what we will regret. Keep in mind you can start to have sex and stop at any point. If your inner voice starts to tell you that sex is not right, stop. You owe no one sex.

And if you decide to have sex, make sure to make it safe. Use condoms, women get pregnant, become HIV positive, or catch a sexually transmitted disease the first time.

You need to make your own choice, but weigh the pros and cons and listen to your gut. Only you can know what is best for you.

Best,
Professor Foxy

If you have a question for Professor Foxy, send it to ProfessorFoxyATfeministingDOTcom.

I couldn't visit this shop in Denver myself, so I asked Shanna Katz, author of the blog Sexuality Happens to do a guest review.

Thanks Shanna!

Hysteria has been a bastion of sex positive culture in Denver for almost four years now. Having opened its doors in April 2005, it is the only store in the state of Colorado that sells only body healthy items (all toys are phthalate free, and they actually care about the materials, where/how the items are made, etc, and of course don't carry body harming products such has Anal Eze or vaginal shrinking cream). Hysteria's official owners are Elizabeth Hauptman and Pete Yribia, but all the current store business is conducted by Elizabeth, although her partner Pete has been incredibly supportive of this endeavor. The entire staff is very knowledgeable, and is all women and trans.

Located as a store front in the liberal and artsy South Broadway neighborhood, Hysteria is nestled between a kebab place, a tattoo parlor, and is right next to a Pride store, with rainbow's abound. The window contains more of the lingerie style decor, but makes not apologies about being a sex-positive toy boutique. When you walk in, the toys are all out on display (with batteries or plugged in) and the customer is encouraged to browse, touch and play. I particularly liked their "Petting Zoo" area, with information on a variety of materials, including silicone, jelly and cyberskin, with examples, so people could see why the store chose to only sell silicone. Toys are fairly evenly divided between vibrators, dildos, butt toys, kink toys, and luxury toys (metal, glass, stone, etc).

Shoulder-baring brides with jaunty hats are clearly strumpets.

Calling young women who are getting married "MySpace generation brides," Newsweek complains that brides today are "like a virgin no more." (I'd be outraged, but this is just too fun for me to post about to be all that angry.)

Two decades ago, when young girls wondered how brides were supposed to look and behave, they'd most likely conclude--with some prompting from Cinderella--that on their big day they'd be a princess. They'd be blushing, virginal and wrapped from head to toe in tulle and lace.

So why is it that these days, some brides seem to be taking their cues more from Jessica Rabbit than Cinderella? More vamp than virgin, they're having bachelorette parties that are as raunchy as their fiancés' sendoffs. They're selecting cleavage- or lower-back-baring bridal gowns that might get a gasp from conservative relatives.

Are we seriously supposed to be scandalized by back-bearing dresses and cheesy bachelorette parties with penis straws? Come on now. But apparently this article is less about how immodest brides are, and more about moral panic over women in general.

This is, after all, is a generation that is comfortable with "sexting" and posting provocative pictures of themselves on Facebook and MySpace.

Wow, MySpace and sexting in one sentence - impressive! The article goes on to point out (smugly) that women are getting married later, having raunchier bachelorette parties, having their ceremonies in locations other than churches, and living with their significant others before getting married. And we're supposed to think, I guess, that these are all bad things.

What's really interesting to me is how the media is able to frame anything as women being slutty. Fun.

(Naturally, you can find out more what I think about sex and sexism in The Purity Myth.)

TaraK on the Community blog has more.

Check out RH Reality Check's new video on the Feminist Majority Foundation's campaign to expose crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), which include accounts of students who have been duped into thinking they're at a family planning clinic only to find themselves being told that abortion may cause breast cancer and "boys don't need to know how to put on condoms."

Our Reality: A Look at Crisis Pregnancy Centers from RH Reality Check on Vimeo.

Via Broadsheet.

Looks like we might have a new brand of MRA on our hands! Remember the "Stockholm: An Exploration of True Love" game that Amazon was selling which allowed users to "convince" a young woman to fall in love with them by sexually assaulting, gassing and psychologically abusing them? Well, it seems that its creator is a wee ticked about being banned from Amazon and others is conducting a college outreach program designed to enlighten college students with "types of love and relationships hidden and ignored by a culture increasingly dominated by female values."

Stanton Audemars says during his college tours, he'll disseminate the game to make sure "that every single college student of appropriate age has access to this simulation," seeming to push an anti-women and anti-feminist message cloaked in BDSM rights language:

"And young men and women have the right to recognize that true love does not necessarily involve the kind of mental castration and excessive domestication that it has become associated with . . . The point of 'Stockholm' is not that kidnapping is the path to true love. The point is that the sugar coated nonsense that TV and movies are forcing down our throat is not the only true path. It is a message that college men and women need to hear. Most don't realize that they have a choice in how they approach love and relationships, that choice in relationships does not just mean 'gay or straight'. It also can be polygamistic, dominant, submissive, relaxed, nice, cruel, possessive, etc. The types of love that women have tried to criminalize are no less valid than the types of love that seem to require that men become weak, doting, servile eunuchs."

The thing is, this game is not about choice; it's about kidnapping, sexual assault and nonconsent. What a hoot it would be if we ran into this guy while doing our college tour come fall.

Check out Jessica's new piece in The Nation on the rebranding efforts that the virginity movement has been making; it's a must-read!

This is a guestblog from Audacia Ray of Waking Vixen and author of Naked on the Internet.

This past week it was revealed that there are some new cases of HIV within the adult industry in Los Angeles. The LA Times and LAist have both covered the story, as have adult industry media outlets AVN and Xbiz. A stunning majority of straight porn companies do not require condoms and actively discourage their use - in the business this is called "condom optional" which is euphemistic for "you either perform without a condom or you don't perform for this company." The gay porn industry has slightly different standards than the straight porn business. Gay porn companies do not require testing, with the idea that it is an invasion of privacy and HIV shouldn't prevent people from working/having sex, but the more reputable companies require condom use. The Gay Video News Awards (GayVN) will not consider a film for an award if there is "barebacking" (sex without a condom) in it.

I worked in and around the sex industry (porn and other sectors) for several years, so my take on the news of recent HIV cases and the dynamics of health, safety, and responsibility within the porn business is colored by my experiences in and frustrations with the business. I directed and produced a bisexual feature porn film, The Bi Apple, which was shot in NYC in summer 2006 and released in February 2007. It went on to win a Feminist Porn Award for Hottest Bisexual Scene and was nominated for Best Bisexual Video at the GayVN Awards (where, by the way, it was pretty fun to be the lone girl director). The company I made the film for required performers to be negative for HIV, chlamydia, and gonorrhea, and I required all performers to wear condoms for vaginal and anal sex and the option to use condoms for oral sex (no one opted to negotiate condom use for oral). I also paid for tests for the performers who weren't working regularly and didn't have a recent test on hand.

Back in the good old days when no one - we swear! - had pre-marital sex.

I'm used to seeing moral panic "hook up" stories on Good Morning America (Is Oral Sex the New Goodnight Kiss?!) and Newsweek, but NPR?!

Sex Without Intimacy: No Dating, No Relationships

The hookup -- that meeting and mating ritual that started among high school and college students -- is becoming a trend among young people who have entered the workaday world. For the many who are delaying the responsibilities of marriage and child-rearing, hooking up has virtually replaced dating.

Here we go. Shit, there's even the obligatory Sex and the City reference! The radio segment takes a more complex perspective, of course, than your run-of-the-mill sex scare stories. But I was still disappointed to see the myth that young folks only just started having pre-marital funtime perpetuated by NPR.

As I've written before, 95% of Americans have premarital sex, and this has been true for decades. Even for women who were born in the 1940s, nine out of ten had sex before marriage. This is not something new, it doesn't come from the internet or texting (sorry, sexting!). What was also irritating is this thinly-veiled fear that young people are waiting too long to get married (the article is accompanied by marriage rate graphs) - yet another anti-feminist talking point.

But what struck me the most about the article that accompanied the radio segment was the poll they had at the end:

Talk about removing nuance from sexuality! As if "hooking up" was some sort of monolith. I imagine people's sexual experiences run the gamut from "fun" to "degrading" to - gasp! - feelings not easily explained by an online poll.

Related posts: Moral panic visualized
Girls aren't "going wild" after all
Spitting Game: A film about "hook up" culture
What's wrong with casual sex?

Check out Jessica Wakeman's personal essay on resolving the conflict between her fetish for being submissive in the bedroom and her staunch feminist identity outside of it.

Our very own sex advice columnist, Professor Foxy, was interviewed by Amanda Marcotte on her RealityCast over at RH Reality Check.

You can also listen here.

This is just...wow.

We're a wee late to this; the ad was created by a program which is headed by the Leicester City Council in the UK, and was released by the National Health Service of Leicester. And despite YouTube banning it (not sure why it's up again), NHS Leicester defended the ad, saying that it was merely designed to "shock" and "provoke" younger people.

"We know this film is hard-hitting, but so are the numbers of under-18s getting pregnant in Leicester. The city's Teenage Pregnancy and Parenthood Partnership has been successful in cutting the numbers of young girls getting pregnant," said Tim Rideout, chief executive of NHS Leicester City.

Shock? Yes. Provoke? If they mean "provoke" young people to run away screaming from The Sex, not so much. While the program is pro-contraception and pro-choice, using the same fear and shame tactics as abstinence-only programs have so ineffectively done is not the route to go. (Not to mention it's, ya know, fucked up.)

The kicker is they're starting a "drama series" in June. That should be a hoot.

I am a fan of the sponge. But they need to stop teasing, for real.

From The New York Times:

At one time the Today Sponge, a spermicide-coated polyurethane barrier placed in the vagina to inhibit sperm, was the most popular form of over-the-counter birth control for women. Now, a new distributor is introducing it again this weekend, hoping to reclaim that status.

Introduced in 1983, the sponge first disappeared from drugstores in 1994 after some manufacturing problems. It reappeared in 2005 under new ownership, which spent millions to promote the brand before selling it to another company. That new proprietor declared bankruptcy in late 2007, taking the Today Sponge out of production last year.

I remember when the sponge came back in 2007, and I started to use it soon after. Then *poof*, gone. So let's hope the Today sponge is here to stay - because the more contraceptive options women have, the better!

Via PopGadget.

This was posted earlier today, but I had a few more thoughts so here is an expanded version. Sorry to the commenters who have already begun this discussion!

Guttmacher Institute, a reputable and well-respected reproductive health think tank asked this question in it's latest report. From the report:

Withdrawal is sometimes referred to as the contraceptive method that is "better than nothing." But, based on the evidence, it might more aptly be referred to as a method that is almost as effective as the male condom--at least when it comes to pregnancy prevention. If the male partner withdraws before ejaculation every time a couple has vaginal intercourse, about 4% of couples will become pregnant over the course of a year. However, more realistic estimates of typical use indicate that about 18% of couples will become pregnant in a year using withdrawal. These rates are only slightly less effective than male condoms, which have perfect- and typical-use failure rates of 2% and 17% respectively.

I think it's important that they are reflecting on this method of pregnancy prevention, but the reasons that sex educators have been hesitant to promote it still stand. Obviously, withdrawal is not effective at all for preventing sexually transmitted infections, so that's a big factor.

Also, as some of you pointed out, the withdrawal method relies on good communication (and self-knowledge) on behalf of the male partner. He's got to know when he's close to orgasm, tell his partner, and pull out in time. The piece about communication is true about most methods, except maybe hormonal things that don't require the other partner to participate (like the pill, or shot, or IUD). But I think we can all agree that we want to promote communication around safer sex.

But this might be a useful method in low-resource situations. Obviously there might be couples who find this an adequate method, particularly if they are in a monogamous partnership where they have both been tested. But say we're talking about a situation where the two people don't have access to other pregnancy prevention methods, either because of money constraints or lack of access to clinics or other services. Teaching them this method would at least give them something to fall back on in terms of pregnancy prevention.

What this makes me realize is how limited we still are when it comes to safer sex technology. Condoms are really the only option out there for preventing STIs, while we have a variety of options for pregnancy prevention (including, it seems, withdrawal). I think a true comprehensive sex education curriculum could have useful teaching on withdrawal, the downsides and possible benefits, alongside other methods of STI and pregnancy prevention.

Check out the trailer for Kirby Dick's (of This Film is Not Yet Rated) new documentary exploring the hypocrisy of closeted politicians in the U.S. who, on the one hand, vote and vocally denounce gay rights, while seeking having gay relationships behind closed doors.

It's been getting unanimously positive critical reviews.

Thanks to Bob Lamm for the heads up.

(NSFW. It's Madonna!)

They needed a study to prove that emotional intelligence leads to better sex for women. You mean knowing yourself and your body helps you have orgasms? OK, OK, if this helps more people figure out that women have brains and those brains help them figure out how to have orgasms, then that's cool by me.

Check out this surprisingly informative piece from the sexpert over at Fox News (yeah, I did a double take as well), Yvonne Fulbright about the reported decrease in sex organ functioning and loss of sex drive due to anorexia and bulimia. She writes,

*Possibly triggering*

Having an eating disorder is also linked to deficient sexual functioning in women when they become sexually active. When a female severely reduces her intake of food to the point she's consuming hardly anything, naturally, her reproductive system shuts down.

With low body fat, her body fails to produce sufficient amounts of sex hormones, namely estrogen. Thus, she'll quit menstruating, making pregnancy difficult for those hoping to reproduce. These endocrinal changes have a domino effect, starting with a lack of vaginal secretions.

This loss of vaginal lubrication makes intercourse painful and uncomfortable. As a result, many develop an aversive reaction to sex and further loss of interest. Lack of orgasm is also common in women with anorexia nervosa.

That is the medical advice, prior to this Fulbright goes into women with eating disorders and how their low self esteem affects their sex drive. I think her analysis is apt.

The one thing that is rubbing me the wrong way (and perhaps I am reading into it to much!) is the way this is couched as advice on how to have better sex as opposed to how to have a healthier self-esteem. I guess it is a sex column, but the reason women should stop having eating disorders is because of their sex drive, not because it is unhealthy? Also, I was hoping that when she wrote the tag line to the article she was going to suggest that having a curvy figure is sexy, as well, to counter-act the reason that so many women have eating disorders; they are taught that thin is sexy.

Finally, doesn't the advice border on, "you better stop it with that eating disorder, because it is NOT sexy?"

This weekend I had the pleasure of attending the Sex 2.0 "unconference." It's the second time this meet-up has occurred, and it's focus is the intersection of social media, feminism and sexuality. What does that mean? You get a group of about 200 sex positive bloggers, writers, sex workers and affiliated fans together in a room to talk about sex, feminism and technology.

It was pretty awesome.

While I am not a sex blogger, I do often write about sex-related topics (feminist sex shops anyone?) and am a big fan of many of the people who do write about sex and culture.

I was also psyched to see that feminism was a highlighted intersection, as I do think that sex positive movements and feminism go hand in hand.

I've also very much benefited from the way the internet has given me access to all sorts of sex related experiences and writing that I never would have had otherwise. Sex bloggers like Sinclair Sexsmith provide me with experiences that often mirror my own, and that is so valuable and validating.

Some of the great bloggers/activists/writers I met this weekend whose work you might want to check out:

(Warning, some of this content might not be safe for work)

Audacia Ray, author of Naked on the Internet and the Waking Viken blog
Amber Rhea, co-founder of the Sex 2.0 conference and blogger at Being Amber Rhea
Essin' Em, sex blogger at Sexuality Happens
Melissa Gira, sex and technology writer
Mollena, incredible sex educator and blogger at The Perverted Negress, where her tagline is "it ain't just the hair that's kinky"

And many more! You can check out the twitter feed here

One of my favorite quotes from the weekend:

Ricci Levy, Woodhull Freedom Foundation Executive Director

"Imagine a country where you are just as comfortable talking to people about sex and what you like as you are talking about chocolate. That would be what sexual freedom would look like."

I do not like Miss California Carrie Prejean. I think she's a bigot, and I don't particularly dig the way she's making the understandable negative reaction to her comments about same sex marriage about people "persecuting" her.

But no matter how I, or anyone else, feels about Prejean - this shit is simply wrong. It wasn't enough that folks were mocking the woman for getting breast implants, now they have to slut shame her into oblivion for some "nude" pictures. (And seriously, the pics are hardly scandalous considering the bathing suit competition and all.)

From the Associated Press:

The directors of the Miss California USA pageant are looking into whether title holder Carrie Prejean violated her contract by working with a national group opposed to gay marriage and by posing semi-clad when she was a teenage model.

Pageant spokesman Roger Neal said Tuesday it appears the 21-year-old Prejean has run afoul of several sections of the 12-page contract that prospective contestants were required to sign before competing in the state contest.

The contract contains a clause asking participants whether they have conducted themselves "in accordance with the highest ethical and moral standards" and if they've ever been photographed nude or partially nude.

Apparently it's only okay for women to be objectified when it's the pageant that's doing it.

It also irks me to no end that sites like the one that released these "scandalous" pictures (and no, I won't link to them) justify themselves by claiming that they've caught Prejean being a hypocrite.

From Jezebel:

The text posted along with the photo on [redacted] does describe Prejean as a "self-proclaimed bible thumper," and concludes: "So much for being a good role model for the state of California Carrie. Looks like your Dirty photo shoot makes you a sinner too."

You know, there are plenty of ways to fight back against discrimination and hypocrisy - sexually shaming women isn't one of them. Not only is it intellectually lazy (really, there's no other way to show that Prejean's comments were terrible?), but fighting homophobia with misogyny pretty much reeks of hypocrisy itself, no?

A study from Lucile Packard Children's Hospital and the Stanford University School of Medicine shows that health websites that have sexual health information for teens are often "riddled with errors and omissions."

Lead researcher Sophia Yen, MD, said, "Even widely trusted sites like WebMD are not that accurate when it comes to adolescent reproductive health...Teens should be cautious about finding sexual health answers on the Web."

About half of the Web sites, including such highly trafficked destinations as Wikipedia and Mayoclinic.com, failed to provide accurate, complete information about emergency contraception, also known as "the morning-after pill." For instance, sites often failed to say that minors can buy emergency contraception from authorized pharmacists in nine states, and many sites did not correct the myth that emergency contraception causes an abortion.

So where can young people find accurate sexual health info? The research team found that the most reliable sites are Go Ask Alice, the Center for Young Women's Health, TeensHealth, and Planned Parenthood's Teen Wire.

So this morning, around 10am EST, Jessica will be appearing on the Today show with Kathy Lee Gifford to talk about her new book, The Purity Myth. Unfortunately, as the mainstream shows tend to do, they've decided to turn it into a debate with this woman, Lakita Garth, who is regarded as an "abstinence champion."

If you're near a TV, check it out, and send Jessica some positive feminist vibes for what's likely to be a difficult conversation.

If we can find a video of it, we'll post that after.

UPDATE: You can live stream the show here.
Sorry, that link seems to have old segments from yesterday--I'll post the link to the actual segment once I find it.

Another video version of Not Oprah.

Check out Jess' book, RH Reality Check, and Shelby Knox's work.

Transcript after the jump.

I've been listening to a lot of the Savage Love Podcast lately.

I don't read a lot of Dan Savage's blogging, and some things he said around Prop 8 and race really got me angry.

That being said, it's been nice to listen to something that isn't about the state of the world, or the economy, or other depressing topics. I always say when the world is getting me down we can always talk about sex.

So that's where Savage Love comes in. For those of you who don't know, it's a sex advice podcast where people call in with questions (about all sorts of things) and he responds. Sort of like our Ask Professor Foxy Series, but definitely less feminist and a lot more vulgar. If only Professor Foxy had her own podcast! Maybe one day.

I've probably listened to ten of his old shows by now (lots of long distance driving lately) and I'm undecided about him. Sometimes I love what he says and think he gives good advice, other times he's a total jerk and gives terrible advice.

What do you all think about Savage Love?

Check out this inaugural guest post from Rachel Simmons, author of the bestselling Odd Girl Out, and the upcoming, The Curse of the Good Girl:

Turn the lights down and put on some Ashford and Simpson, because I'm popping my blog cherry today with some guest post access from Courtney. I'm sending out my own personal Thank You Thursday to her for a classy critique of the date rape scene in the Observe and Report trailer. Her speak out hit radars all over the net and has, at this writing, over 30,000 views on YouTube. That's some true blue feminist activism.

Maybe I was staring at Seth Rogen's face one too many times as I watched and rewatched the trailer, but it got me thinking about Hollywood's new comedy Brat Pack, the white-hot crew led by Judd Apatow. Observe and Report may not be Apatow's, but it bears his brand of brothers, to be sure, and has his fans in the crosshairs. Inventor of the "bromance," films which celebrate the male bond, Apatow has been anointed the new king of comedy by a worshipful band of critics.

I'm grateful for the bromance myself. I love using Superbad to talk with teens about masculinity and its suffocating constraints. The bromance portrays a kinder, softer young man who can, as the New Yorker's David Denby wrote, combine "desperately filthy talk with the most tender, even delicate, emotion." As a potty humor-loving girl, I can't complain. These movies slay me.

But the progressive manhood celebrated in Apatow's films frequently brings guys together at women's expense. Women and girls may still be old-fashioned sexual conquests, but in the modern bromance, they're also foils to male friendship. They're nags and nuisances, often one dimensionally so. Somehow, we're expected to swallow the misogyny in these films because they're coated in a syrup of kinder, gentler masculinity. And yeah, they may be obsessed with penis, but these guys love to equate vagina with weakness (as in, "Don't let the door hit you in your vagina on the way out").

I wonder if the bromance is part of a larger trend in guy-centered films where female characters are increasingly becoming objects. Courtney argues that the date-rape scene in Observe and Report blurs the lines of consensual sex. I agree, and I think the blurring on screen reflects a change in the culture of young female sexuality.

The pornification of sex has been defined for young women as a path to personal empowerment. Authentic sexual desire has taken a backseat to the pressure to perform for guys, whether it's through Girls Gone Wild type exhibitionism, sexting, or the straight-girl-on-straight-girl kissing offered up so casually for male audiences. As sexuality increasingly imitates pornography, young women are focusing more on their audience than their authentic experience of desire- and hence we have Anna Faris' character weirdly endorsing her own date rape. Watching the scene feels like that moment in middle school when the nerdy kid laughs at a joke made by the cool kids, but doesn't realize that the joke is about her. Anna Faris' character gets the punch line, sure, but with vomit leaking out of her mouth, the joke is on her.

For the record, I love a great fart joke. I love Seth Rogen. But let's not give movies with guy bonding a free pass just because they challenge some gender constraints. Pardon the pun, but there's some stinky there, too.

Check out this piece from the NYT featuring two pediatricians talking about young people and sex:

It has never been easy for adults to deal with young teenagers honestly and sensibly on this subject, and it isn't easy now. We live with an endless parade of hypersexualized images -- and a constant soundtrack of adults lamenting children's exposure to that endless parade. There's increasing knowledge of dating violence, including well-publicized celebrity incidents. And there's always a new movie to see about how adolescent boys are clueless, sex-obsessed goofballs.

Stir it all together, and you may get an official worldview in which boys are viewed as potential criminals and girls as potential victims.

Thoughts on the whole article?

Babeland is offering a special deal in honor of tax day.

In stores and online, you can get 10% off all purchases, and if you one of the first 100 customers online, or in person in New York or Seattle you could get a vibrator free!

And to reward your patri-erotic duty, Babeland will pick up the sales tax on all in-store and online purchases made on April 15, 2009 (in the form of a 10% off discount). To qualify for this promo online, customers will need to enter the coupon code "notax" during checkout. Babeland's Tax Day Sale and Giveaway are part of our stimulus package! Learn more.

Just another reason to love that store.

Cartoon from Questionable Content

This cartoon from Questionable Content, sent to us by a reader who loves our feminist sex shop reviews. I think I've lived the above scenario at least twenty times by now. I am such an advocate of sex shops, particularly feminist ones. I'm also a huge advocate of taking my friends to buy toys. One year I bought a vibrator for everyone as a birthday present (well minus family members).

The whole strip is here.

Thanks to Catherine for the link!

photo by earl

Recycle them!

Finally, there's an environmentally friendly way to dispose of used or broken vibrators, dildos, plugs, or any other sex toy you may have. Our Sex Toy Recycling program offers you a way to recycle sex toys that you no longer want or use.

Simply drop your clean used toy(s) in the mail, when we receive it in our warehouse we will have it cleaned and disassembled. The rubber, silicone, hard plastics, metal, e-waste and motors will be sent to recycling facilities that process the materials for reuse. Did you leave the batteries in? Don't worry, we dispose of them responsibly..

Now, when you get rid of that old, broken or unused sex toy, you will be helping our environment. You can feel good that you have done one more thing to cut consumer waste, reduce landfills and help eliminate the toxic chemicals that seep into our soil and ground water.

Not only do we make recycling your sex toys simple, we also offer a reward as an incentive. For every package of toys you send in to be recycled, you will receive a $10 gift card to use at one of our affiliate partners as well free shipping when applicable on your next order. So the more you recycle, the more you can play. Going green has never been this much fun!

Sounds like a win win to me.

h/t to Tanya

This weekly Saturday column "Ask Professor Foxy" will regularly contain sexually explicit material. This material is likely not safe for work viewing. The title of the column will include the major topic of the post, so please read the topic when deciding whether or not to read the entire column.

Hi Prof. Foxy,

Confused

Hi Confused -

Glad to know the column is spurring you to think about your own sexuality. We live in a world obsessed with two things: either/or and labels. Regarding sexuality and sexual orientation, we are told we must choose: gay, lesbian, straight, or bi? Which one are you? YOU MUST BE ONE OR THE OTHER. Actually, no you don't. You can be queer, you can be non-identified, you can be attracted only to 5'9" tall redheads who play basketball but are either male or female, you can be all or none of these things.

Part of this may be figuring out that you check or don't check certain boxes during different parts of your life, by that I mean sexual desire, orientation, and identification is fluid. You may date men in your 20s, women in your 30s, both in your 40s. Your figuring it out may mean becoming comfortable with being attracted to a wide variety of genders.

As to only being able to picture yourself in a relationship with a guy, I question how much this has to do with sexual orientation and how much this has to do with what you see in the world around you. Where do we see healthy, stable same-sex relationships? Where do we see happy same-sex couples achieving in this world? Ellen and Portia? And the second one is. . . . . .

Or you may have serious relationships with men and great sex with women. What actually matters in this process is getting to a place where you feel comfortable with who you are. Take time to do this and there may never be a box you want to check. You may have a multitude of experiences and relationships that feel right.

If this all feels too loosey-goosey for you, focus on what you want in a partner regardless of their gender. Funny? Tall? Bookworm? Chocolate lover? And then focus on finding that. When people ask you what you are (cause they will ask), it is ok and fine to say "I don't know," queer, bi or you can say figuring it out. You can say these things for the rest of your life and be quite happy, which is actually what matters after all.

If you have a question for Professor Foxy, send it to ProfessorFoxyATfeministingDOTcom.

Thomas and Rachel Myers at the ACLU recently covered the story in PA where a group of teens were being threatened by Wyoming County (PA) district attorney George Skumanick, Jr. of facing criminal charges over distributing revealing pictures of their classmates - including charges against the very girls in the pictures for being accomplices to child pornography because they allowed themselves to be photographed.

Well, we're happy to see that a U.S. judge has filed a restraining order against Mr. Skumanick from pressing charges against the students. Said the judge:

"The court agrees with the plaintiffs that the public interest would be served by issuing a TRO (temporary restraining order) in this matter as the public interest is on the side of protecting constitutional rights."

Awesome.

Hey all - Sorry for the late post. Had some technological glitches.
Thanks!

Hi Prof. Foxy,

Thanks so much for any advice you can offer!
Sincerely,
Paranoid Wife

Ok, so I know the Vatican's actual policies on contraception and safe sex are far from hilarious, but I had a good laugh at this today:

Thanks for the link, Phoebe.

I can't believe I missed this episode (and that I have to wait weeks till the full episode is available online)! Outside of the mouse-on-teen violence, I really liked this clip - especially how it points out that by focusing on purity these companies/singers are actually focusing on sexuality, just in a "safe" way.

Thanks to Lucas for the heads up.

One of the upsides of reading IWF's blog (the downside being the constant retching) is that it points you in the direction of gems like this one. Robert P. George and John B. Londregan, professors in Princeton's Department of Politics, say that sex on college campuses is a "tragedy." They also really, really like scare quotes.

...Princeton, where we teach, is a wonderful university; but like other colleges and universities there is a dark side to its social life. Our students are bright, enthusiastic, and eager to learn. Most did not come to college bent on boozing and hooking up. Many feel deeply ambivalent about these aspects of campus life. Yet, they find little support on campus for the "alternative lifestyle" of living by traditional moral virtues.

...Whether it is a private institution such as Yale or a public one such as the University of Delaware, the truth is that things begin going badly for them right off the bat. Princeton is all-too-typical. As part of the freshman orientation program, students are required to attend an event entitled "Sex on a Saturday Night." It consists of a series of skits ostensibly designed to discourage "date rape." For years, critics have contended that the play, which features vulgarity and suggestive conduct, does nothing to serve this laudable goal; rather, it reinforces the campus culture of sexual permissiveness, primarily by shaping students' expectations to include sexual license as normal.

Let's not even get into the fact that date rape is in scare quotes - though I think that reveals volumes about where these two are coming from. What's interesting is that right off the bat, George and Londregan assume that young people don't like hooking up and sex - it's the dark side after all - and that all that's stopping them from living a life of morality is the lack of a college-funded chastity center. (They recommend calling them "Love and Fidelity Centers.")

Most universities have established non-academic centers of various kinds that provide educational, social, and counseling support. Princeton is again typical. We have the Women's Center, the International Center, the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) Center, and the Center for Equality and Cultural Understanding. Whether or not one agrees with the ideological bent of some of these centers, at least they represent the University's effort to meet what are perceived as the needs of certain segments of our student body.

Hmm, the last time I checked being a woman or being gay isn't ideological - it's who you are.

Conspicuously absent, however, are centers or programs offering meaningful support for students who desire to live chastely. "Sexual health" offices do not supply the need because staff members see their roles, not as promoting self-discipline and high moral standards, but as providing "non-judgmental" advice about how to have sex while avoiding pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases and infections.

Perhaps - and this is just a guess - these folks providing scary non-judgmental advice simply don't think it's their place to preach "morals" (I think they're rubbing off on me with the scare quotes!) to adults capable of making their own sexual decisions. But George and Londregan are having none of it. They not only think that there needs to be virginity centers on campus - they believe they need to be led by university officials, not students who presumably can't be trusted not to fuck their way through school.

Students are strapped for time and don't have the experience or professional skills to provide the level of guidance and support that their peers need when it comes to important questions of sexuality and morality. Universities know this--that's why at Princeton, for example, in addition to the student gay Pride Alliance, the Queer Graduate Caucus, LGBT Task Force, and the LGBT Staff and Faculty Group, there is the University's LGBT Center, with a full-time paid University staff member committed to LGBT support and activities. For the same reasons, there needs to be university support for students who want to live and conduct their relationships honorably in the face of the hook-up culture.

What really gets me - outside of the frightening idea of dudes like George and Londregan heading up a center telling young women anything about sex - is that these professors that claim to have students' best interest at heart use incredibly shaming language throughout this article. After all, if students who don't have sex are acting "honorably," what does that make those who do have sex?

So just a quick message to George, Londregan and all the virginity movement shamers out there: There's nothing wrong with having sex. There's nothing immoral, abnormal, or dishonorable about it. (Also, mind your own business and stop thinking about your students' sex lives. It's creepy.)

When the folks promoting this DVD, a re-release, got in touch, I couldn't resist taking a look at their film: Private Practices: The Story of a Sex Surrogate. It was originally released in 1985 and directed by Kirby Dick, the same guy who did This Film is Not Yet Rated.

It's about what it sounds like--turns out that there is a field within sex therapy, in which trained practitioners try to help their clients get over sexual anxiety and disorders by literally having sex with them. The film follows one of these therapists, Maureen Sullivan, as she rehabs two very different men, 25-year-old Kipper, a virgin grad student, and 45-year-old John, a newly divorced fella with a lot of insecurity to battle.

I felt so torn while watching this highly provocative film. On the one hand, I can understand why this form of therapy exists. Americans are so hung up on sex, but rarely deal with it in a straight-forward open way. This approach feels very European--it's sex, so what, get over it.

On the other hand, it all felt rather creepy too. Sullivan creates real relationships with her clients, as do all good therapists, but I wonder how much their experiences with her actually translate into the real world. She has to have sex with them, after all. She has to pretend that she enjoyed it and enjoys being around them. The real world is a far messier place, where your sexual partner has his or her own nexus of desires, anxieties, and moods to contend with. Sullivan is like a blank slate sexual partner. I hope these guys don't go out after their experiences with her expecting other women to be as singularly focused or servile (I mean, she is being paid).

And apparently this practice is very much alive and well. I uncovered a 2003 article in New York Magazine on sex surrogacy and lots of websites offering it up. Anyone else know any good feminist analysis on this phenomena?

If you want a dose of super 80s fashion inspiration and a glimpse into a thought-provoking and bizarre subculture, check it out on Netflix.

Having an Iphone has made these last few days in Austin a lot easier. Between the GPS and the scheduling function that SXSW has set up, I haven't been lost (unless I don't have service.) I understand I am very, very lucky to have an Iphone. I saved up for it and didn't splurge on other things, along with having a phone with an antenna (!) until a few months ago. Needless to say, similar to Nezua, I really love my Iphone.

If you are a nerd, like me, you have heard that the Iphone has released a new version of their Iphone software. It is going to add a whole new list of features that the current software fails to have. I am really excited about these new features. But as much as I love my Iphone, I have never thought seriously about having sex with my Iphone. I am going to be totally honest with you. Sometimes I want to make-out with my Iphone-it is just simply a divine piece of technology-but I haven't personally thought about using it as a vibrator or as device to have phone sex with someone.

These authors disagree. Both, My Sexy Professor and Gizmodo are discussing different ways you can have sex with your Iphone. Last year at SXSW I wrote about a panel that discussed the ways that humans interact with technology to have sex. I think this brings up really interesting questions about the role of technology in our sex lives. Generally, discussions of the role of technology (and by this I mean in the geek world, not dildonics) is generally skewed towards male sexuality (teledildonics, pornography, etc) but does the Iphone allow for a new more female centric form of sex via technology that the geek world has ignored until now?

TPMtv did this great interview with Susie Bright last month and I totally blanked on posting it. Better late than never, though!

As I move into my third week of Professor Foxying, I realize I've been doing some pretty heavy, relationship-type stuff. Since lord knows sex is not all about relationships, I'm going to do a couple of pure sex questions. And FYI - I always change the names. Hope you enjoy!

Professor Foxy,
I feel sort of silly asking this. I have heard so often how the woman on top position, in male/female sex is often the best way for the woman to reach orgasm through intercourse. I just can't seem to get the hang of it. Do I move up and down? Rock? I feel like I can't relax into it up there because I'm working so hard. It also feels a bit uncomfortable when I sit all the way up or lean back. I'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong, or if it's just not for me.

Thanks so much!
-Girl usually on bottom

Hello Girl -
There is no one best position. Some women like on top, some like on bottom, and most will never orgasm with penetration alone. For the overwhelming majority of women, it is all about clitoral stimulation. There is also not one best way to move. A third will move this way, a third that, and a third another way all together. What I can say is this, climb on top, close your eyes, touch your clitoris and try moving in different ways. Try not to focus on how you are moving, but really how it feels. Penetration is like fudge on ice cream, it makes ice cream taste better, but rarely works alone.

Dear Professor Foxy,
Though I've never been tempted to write for sex advice before, I trust feministing enough to try!
I'm in college, and have a relatively new boyfriend. He's great, and we're very open about things with each other, but he doesn't have very much experience in the bedroom. In fact, I'm not sure he knows where all the lady parts are. He's willing to learn, but I'm not sure how to go about "teaching" subjects like sex or oral sex. Perhaps you could offer some advice?

Thanks!
Gertrude

Hi Gertrude -
I really like both your teaching instinct and your desire to improve your sex life. Make it a game and phrase it about you. "Baby, I want to learn how to please you more. Can you show me how you like to be touched, stroked, sucked?" Get naked and touch yourself in front of each other. Then try it in with each other. The other part is to use positive encouragement: "I love it when you. . ..." "Honey, yes that is it." Just plain moaning. This makes it easier to then say "a little faster" "A little to the left"

Dear Dr. Foxy,
I am a married, heterosexual woman. I really love receiving anal sex - we've done it only a few times, but I loved it each time and fantasize about it all the time. What prevents me from asking for it more often is the fear that frequent anal sex can "stretch out" the anal sphincter, leading to incontinence or other health problems. Is that just a silly (and possibly homophobic) urban legend? Or is that a real risk? And if it is a risk, if there anything that can be done to prevent it? I avoid putting sex toys in my anus too often for the same reason.

Thanks,
Anonymous

Hey Anonymous -
I searched for some good studies on this issue and could not find any. So I did the next best thing, I went to happy hour with a few of my favorite gay boy bottoms (often used for shorthand for the receptive partner when men have sex with other men). And after several martinis, we agreed that this is just a silly, definitely homophobic urban legend.

No really, anal penetration is fine for you or him. There are some steps you should definitely take to keep it safe. Water-based lube is a necessity. Both on the outside of your anus and on the implement or penis. I also suggest your husband use a condom, even if you don't use condoms for vaginal penetration. Three words: feces in urethra. I would also do post anal sex clean up with a moist towelette (Tucks is a good idea) versus rougher toilet paper. If you are using fingers, either use latex gloves or make sure fingernails are clean and short. A good test is to run the nails across your palm.

During my searching, I also found this great advice from Duke University. It is great for novices and experts alike.

If you start to worry about anal incontinence or general tightness/control, try anal Kegels.

The new blog Akimbo of the International Women's Health Coalition has a great post and video up about how despite female condom's bad rep, they're getting great feedback from the countries that IWHC works in.

(This is not to mention the FDA's recent announcement of the approval of the new female condom, FC2, which is a thinner material and hella cheaper.)

Check it.

I'm really excited to announce that The Purity Myth: How America's Obsession with Virginity Is Hurting Young Women is out. (Though super nervous too!)

And while I'm anticipating some backlash - shit, even the title/cover of the book generated some conservative hand-wringing - I'm hoping that it will further the conversation about how the conservative movement uses young women's bodies and moral panic myths to push traditional gender roles and punish women who don't fit into the "pure" ideal.

If you want to get more of an idea of what the book is all about, you can download the Introduction here. Hope you enjoy it!

You can buy The Purity Myth on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Powell's or Indiebound.

I recently discovered comedian Luenell. I had seen her in Borat, but I didn't know who she was until I watched Katt Williams: American Hustle (which is equal parts funny, equal parts sexist). However, Luenell stole the show for me, she is funny as hell and also raunchy, so, you have been warned!

Today the Gay Men's Health Crisis, the Women's HIV Collaborative of NY, along with other HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention groups in NY will be marching on the steps of city hall to raise awareness for the alarming rate at which young women are being infected with HIV. One of their demands is increased education around issues of HIV and AIDs.

Why is this an important issue? The Women's HIV Collaborative blog tells us.

Here in the United States, women comprise about 27% of HIV infections, up from about 8% in 1984. In many countries around the world, women already represent over 50% of HIV infections. Rates of sexually transmitted infections among youth and teenage pregnancy have risen over the last several years - both indicators that we may soon see a corresponding rise in HIV infections among both young women and men. And, although generally considered a chronic manageable condition in the U.S., HIV continues to be the leading cause of death among African American women aged 25 to 34 years old.

Yet most of the general public in the U.S. think of HIV as a men's disease and some members of the HIV advocacy/policy community have gone so far as to say "HIV/AIDS in this country is a men's disease".

If you are in NY the march is today at 1 pm. More specific info can be found here.

If you are not in NY but know of other events please put them in comments.

via Newsday.

UPDATE: Also check out this piece from the Feministing Community (originally appeared at HuffPo) about HIV in NY with this year's theme for the National Women and Girls HIV/AIDS Awareness Day theme being "HIV is Right Here at Home."

Rona Taylor, author of the piece tells us,

The theme for this year's National Women and Girls HIV/AIDS Awareness Day, "HIV is Right Here at Home," hits close to home here in New York City, where 10% of all women living with the virus in the United States reside.

It's the largest population of women with HIV in the country. If all 30,000 of these HIV-positive women and girls were to come together and walk down Fifth Avenue, the crowd would approximate the swell of runners in the NYC Marathon. They could sell out Radio City Music Hall five times over and occupy more than half the seats in Yankee Stadium. A disproportionate number of these women--90 percent--are black and Hispanic; over half, or 68 percent, are over the age of 40; and more than a third, or 41 percent, were infected through heterosexual activity. This is the same female face of HIV that we have been seeing since the epidemic first began to be acknowledged in women in the 80s.

You can check out the report from the Women's HIV Collaborative of NY here.

Hi,
My question is this: I have found it really hard lately to have sex with my boyfriend (5 year relationship). A little over a year ago he told me that he's a cross-dresser and while he doesn't want a sex change, he does think of himself as significantly female. We lived separately due to my work for about 6 months, and it was fine when we visited each other (about twice a month), probably because there was no sign of it, but we've been living back together again for another six months. He still looks mostly the same as ever (except for shaving legs and chest), and he's keeping a cap on the behavior, but I think I see him differently. For the last four months, I think we've had sex three times. It's weird, he doesn't dress much, but it's in my mind a lot. What's weirder is, it's not penetrative sex that's the problem or cuddles, I just don't like kissing him anymore, or him doing anything downstairs. I kindof just want him to get on with it. I've also been pretty down, probably due to stressing about his "hobby".

Is there a way to get around this? I tried to make myself do it a lot because I read somewhere about fake it til you make it, but I just felt sad.
Sorry, this isn't much of a question -
Q

Hi Q -
I've been staring at your question for a few days now and what keeps hitting me over and over is how difficult a situation it is. First, I want to clean up a couple of misconceptions. Most cross dressers are heterosexual men. While for some people, this is a step for transitioning genders (male to female in this case), the majority of cross dressers are not interested in transitioning. Rather, they are turned on or comforted by wearing women's clothing. I think you get this at least intellectually.

You are writing in to a feminist sex column, so I am going to make the assumption that you want to be accepting of his CD.

Here is the heart of it - things have changed. You acted and built on certain assumptions for the past four years and now, after four years of intimacy and relationship, you are discovering a new aspect of him. Are you pissed that it took him four years to tell you? It's ok to be. You can understand how it took him time to be accepting of himself and to work up the courage to tell you, yet you can still be pissed. You give him deserved credit for "keeping a cap on his behavior" while you are trying to work through this, but at the same time his shaved arms and chest are actually a pretty constant and consistent reminder.

Gender matters in relationships. I don't mean gender as in sex. I mean gender as the percentage we want our partners to be masculine and feminine. You found someone whose percentage worked for you - both sexually and in a relationship - now that percentage has changed. What does this mean for your own percentage?

I think fake til you make it works in certain situations, almost all of which are nonsexual. You need to stop faking and start being honest with yourself about how you feel. Do you have friends you can talk to about this? An online support group for women dealing with the same issue? You need a place to vent without worrying about hurting anyone's feelings; you need to talk this out for yourself before you can work it out with him. You are having sex, but I don't think you are having intimacy. You are trying and it is commendable. I just want you to put yourself first right now.

You may have depression, you may just be sad. I think finding a therapist for at least a couple visits would help. Check out the American Associations for Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists for a therapist who is less likely to be judgmental of the CD and more able to focus on the actual issues.

At the end of the day, this relationship may work and it may not. We want to be GGG (Good, Giving and Game - to borrow from Mr. Savage), but there are some things we just can't be ok with. And this may be yours. But you need to give yourself time and space to really flush out what you are feeling. And then you need to talk to him about it. What compromises can be reached? Maybe he can have other partners who he dresses up for? Maybe you can have other partners who are not into CCD? Maybe he does it ever third Thursday? While being caring for him, you also need to be caring for you.

Dr. Ross Ardill, a doctor in Dublin, was found not guilty of professional misconduct yesterday, though he used some truly questionable and outrageously hilarious terminology when trying to figure out if one of his young female patients was either pregnant or potentially infected with a sexually transmitted infection:

He said he asked her was she "next or near a man's willy bits" in the last six months and in relation to her sleeping he did suggest a drink, light exercise, a trashy novel or some "rumpy pumpy". He said he used this kind of "childish" language with all patients to make them feel at ease. Nobody before had found it offensive. He said he would not use the term "willy bits" again.

Read more here.

Thanks to a reader for the heads up.

In a talk I gave a couple of weeks ago in Virginia, I mentioned how the covers of anti-"hook up culture" publications often depict women as disheveled and distraught. Since I didn't get to show folks what I meant then, I thought I could post a couple now for your viewing pleasure (or perhaps more accurately, viewing horror).

Here's a study funded by the Independent Women's Forum, Hooking Up, Hanging Out and Hoping for Mr. Right.

The cover of Laura Sessions Stepp's Unhooked is a bit more subtle, simply showing a faceless woman taking her shirt off.

But it's Miriam Grossman's Unprotected that really takes the shaming cake, with two different covers relaying the same sad message.

I wonder why Grossman decided to go with such a decidedly upbeat cover for her publication with the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute - Sense & Sexuality. (Since she's pretty grim in the book - telling readers that young women who have pre-marital sex are likely to end up depressed, diseased drop outs.) I'd like to think it's because the word 'rectum' looks so pretty in cursive.

If anyone has any more anti-hook up covers, link them in comments!

I'm very excited to be able to introduce a new series on Feministing. We've been playing around with the idea of a sex advice column for a while now and it's finally here!

Thanks to Rebecca for agreeing to do this column. She's a friend of mine, hilarious and amazingly well versed in topics of sex and sexuality.

About Ask Professor Foxy:

Rebecca Fox has been a sex educator since discussing how to have an orgasm in the cafeteria of her all-girl Catholic high school in Jersey. She currently lives in the DC-area with her partner and their many pets. She has worked on advocacy and policy for numerous LGBTQ, sexual health and women's rights organizations. She proudly serves on the board of Choice USA, the Washington Area Clinic Defense Task Force, and the Woodhull Freedom Foundation.

She would love to answer all your questions about sex and sexuality (since it is about more than just intercourse). One major caveat - she won't tell you how to do anything illegal. Thanks to Lawerence v. Texas, all sodomy questions are answerable, so write them in to your dirty little heart's content.

You can email your questions to her at ProfessorFoxyATFeministingDOTcom. You can also leave your questions in comments! Her first post will appear this Saturday, so check back for some great sex advice.

This weekend I was excited to be in Chicago because I've been wanting to check out the feminist sex shop so many of you raved about: Early to Bed.

Early to Bed was founded in 2001 by owner Searah, who was frustrated with the traditional sex shop options.

I made my way to ETB via public transportation, excited to see that it was super accessible. The store front is discreet enough that I walked right by it on the first shot, but not totally hidden. The glass store front sports a large decal/painting of a blue bed with the tagline "intimate apparel."

The stock is pretty standard feminist sex shop fare. Lube, condoms, some gag gifts (but not too many and definitely NO penis lollypops or other annoying bachlorette party gifts), dildos, vibrators, anal toys, harnesses, videos, books and some BDSM gear.

Things that stood out for me about Early to Bed:

• Comfortable and welcoming seating area in the back that my friend and I hung out at reading for a while. Didn't feel rushed or pressured to buy anything.
• Great reference books meant for pursuing, in addition to a few resources from E2B: a Q&A book with questions asked by customers and answered by the owner as well as a book of personal sex toy reviews.
• Great selection of harnesses (all shapes, sizes, materials and price ranges) as well as a unusually large selection of pretty BDSM gear with studded collars, hand restraints etc.
• Very reasonably priced. Toys that I have seen elsewhere for almost twice as much were surprisingly low priced. Not sure how they do it but it's great to see, especially since these toys can be very expensive!
• Great signage throughout the store. My personal favorite: "Please touch, fondle and turn on the toys"

Overall it was a great store and I recommend checking it out. They also have a website where you can buy most of their products. They also have a dedicated youtube channel, with short videos about sex and sexuality.

Las Vegas is making an effort to arrest sex workers who are "repeat offenders" -- and the local newspaper has published photos of many of these woman.

"We're talking about girls who have been arrested repeatedly over the years, ones that we all know by face and by name," said Hughes, citing one woman who was arrested 18 times in a single year.

"If they get the message that Las Vegas is not going to ignore their subsequent arrests, then maybe they'll take their lifestyle to a different city," she said.

Ah, right. Clearly the only people with this "lifestyle," involved in this crime, are the women. Yup, all those women, selling sex to each other. Nah, no men purchasing sex. No pimps. Only these women pictured on the lefthand side of the screen. (Ok, end sarcasm...) Can you imagine the local police imposing a "crackdown" on johns or on pimps? Publishing photos of the men involved in this crime? Yeah, me neither. Even though I'm willing to bet there are a LOT of male repeat offenders as well.

Just because police don't have a list of the most prolific pimps doesn't mean the vice unit is ignoring that part of the problem in its undercover operations, Hughes said.

"We've got two investigative teams that deal with nothing but pimps," she said. "But we also want to minimize opportunities for prostitutes to be aggressive with the tourists and with men who aren't interested in that."

Because clearly the sex-workers are a more aggressive threat than the pimps or johns? Please. As I scroll down the page, reading this article, the women's photos run down the entire lefthand side. I mean, they just keep coming. This whole thing is so painfully gendered and shaming. Who is this helping?

Contact the Las Vegas Review Journal:

Reporter Alan Maimon: amaimon @reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0404.

Info for letters to the editor is here.

Thanks to dozens of you for sending in the link.

UPDATE: On a related note, Kay writes, "If we are going to say prostitution is illegal, why are so few men prosecuted for it? The answer is because they are powerful, well-connected, and can afford expensive lawyers that can keep their names private. ... becoming 'tough on prostitution' is likely to fail in the same way becoming 'tough on drugs' has."

You don't say! This study has found that when men look at what they maturely term, "girlie calendars," not only are they aroused, but they don't think of them as people that are thinking beings, but objects.

When men are shown images of women in bikinis, the part of the brain they use when thinking about DIY tools and other objects lights up.

At the same time, the region they use to try to tune into another person's thoughts and feelings tunes down, brain scans showed.

I was under the impression that the entire culture of marketing already realized that and sells women as part of the product. Her sexuality, her image, her body, her skin, whatever you want, she is yours. Right?

The last line of the article takes the cake.

Asked if women were likely to view half-dressed men in the same way, she said that women tended to rate age and bank balance over looks.

Surely there is *some* biological desire that makes women automatically think about whether men can provide or not, but that desire is minimal considering that we must also factor in common sense. I think this argument proves that despite some pre-historic desire for men to get horny over scantily clad women and for women to want rich husbands that provide security and ability to nest (this is what evolutionary psychologists would argue), most of this desire comes from cultural conditioning. If you are exposed to something enough, you have trouble distinguishing between what you want and what you are supposed to want.

On the other hand, can there be sexy images of women without them inherently being sexist or objectifying?

To us there is an obvious relationship between a woman's libido and her lived experience with sexism, but some researchers chose to deny or ignore it.

Amanda clears it up and calls it out. Check it out on RH Reality Check.

A new study looking at the objectification of women may, at first glance, come off as important research to highlight, but I'm also finding it extremely problematic. The Guardian reports:

Men are more likely to think of women as objects if they have looked at sexy pictures of females beforehand, psychologists said yesterday.

Researchers used brain scans to show that when straight men looked at pictures of women in bikinis, areas of the brain that normally light up in anticipation of using tools, like spanners and screwdrivers, were activated.

Scans of some of the men found that a part of the brain associated with empathy for other peoples' emotions and wishes shut down after looking at the pictures.

Susan Fiske, a psychologist at Princeton University in New Jersey, said the changes in brain activity suggest sexy images can shift the way men perceive women, turning them from people to interact with, to objects to act upon. (Emphasis mine)

If you read the whole piece, you can see that the researchers seem to have good intentions. But while they're acknowledging the oversexualization of women in American culture, suggesting that men are hardwired to objectify women is really dangerous, and for obvious reasons. Simply taking naked women out of the picture (figuratively and literally) is not going to resolve the problem, and implying that "men can't help it" will just be used to contribute to the same sexist customs and rape culture that we're fighting against.

Sure, "sexy images" of women may be one trigger that results in our objectification. But the hand behind that trigger is what should really be looked at here. It's not what's found in men's heads, but what's being ingrained into them.

Check out this hilarious and informative video about toxic sex toys by GristTV, featuring our beloved Babeland.

I think it might be decidedly so. And Ellen Friedrichs at Nerve agrees and backs it up with a bunch of evidence.

It's not that I envision the President endorsing the "Head O State" dildo, or promoting the benefits of masturbation for prostate health, but I'd like to think that in addition to having the occasional cocktail or staying up past nine, Obama will also be looser on matters regarding the sexual behaviors of the public.

To be sure, people were still getting it on during the Bush era. But that era also saw a rise in unwanted pregnancies and infections, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was an associated rise in the numbers of folks walking around with psychological or emotional hang-ups regarding sex. Apparently, Bush initiatives like pushing welfare moms into marriage and promoting abstinence until the age of twenty-nine didn't quite succeed the way he probably hoped.

You can read the rest at Nerve. Now while I support what Friedrichs discusses in this article, the discussion of Michele and Barack Obama's sex life, while explored tastefully, reminds me of this NYT opinion piece about having sex with Obama, which is not as tasteful.

Let me know what you think. It is not that I want to suppress fantasy, or deny that it is probably normal for Americans to be having sexual fantasies about Obama. I am just more interested in what policies he supports to uphold the sexuality rights of our communities. Furthermore, It is hard for me to write about or discuss Michele and Barack Obama's sexuality, without a criticism of the racism embedded in deciding that Obama is "fuckable," given the historical embellishment and manipulation of what is considered black men's sexual potency. It just doesn't sit well with me.

Babeland, a feministing favorite feminist sex shop, is working on putting together a television segment chronicling the history of sex toys. Now that's my kind of television! A request from them for those of you who might have antiques hiding under the bed:

If you have old or antique sex toys that we could borrow, or that you might want to bring on the show, please send us a description of the toy and attach an image to be considered (.jpg preferred). Thanks for your help!

Please email your photo and description to funstuff@babeland.com by Wednesday, February 18.

Best,
Rachel + Claire
Babeland Co-Founders

You know...sometimes a picture really is worth a thousand words. (Not to mention an infinite number of jokes.)

Apparently the Passion for Christ Movement has a bunch of these "ex" shirts, and this is just the latest. Here's the thing - you don't want to masturbate because you feel it goes against your beliefs? All good. But there's no need to shame others, and telling folks that doing something completely natural, safe and personal is sinful...well it's just wrong.

Not to mention, the shame that some people may feel after what one article calls "an illegal orgasm," (something the Passion for Christ members talk about a lot) isn't a sign that masturbation is wrong. It's an indicator that you haven't been told the truth about sexuality:

Two things I've come to know about masturbation is this:

1. It brings shame, and...
2. It is addictive

Most people who have engaged in masturbation know that the culmination of this sexual act ends in shame. I don't have to share with you the thousands of emails of the admittance of this shame because you know all too well since you have experienced it yourself. Curled up in a fetal position, crying, because your bed is even more empty and you're lonelier than you did before you violated yourself.

See, this shit just isn't right. We need to stop teaching young people that their bodies are shameful and that any pleasure they get from it is immoral. Seriously, I wish I could gift wrap Betty Dodson and send her to the person who wrote this.

Thanks to Natalie for the link.

Don't act like you don't love this track.

It is appalling that for a culture as saturated with sex as ours, it is in the arena of education that certain groups want the most censorship and control. Perhaps because it is one institution that parents can have some control over through PTAs, charters and community organizations. It is unfortunate that what is being taught in school isn't matching up to the level at which youth internalize the sex in the media and have sexual experiences whether it be with peers, through pornography, video games or watching movies. Whatever it is, youth are exposed to sex and have a variety of sexual experiences. It is unfortunate that it is not therefore discussed honestly in school.

So I was excited to see this article in the Boston Globe about a church community that teaches real sex ed, you know, the kind that talks about sex.

A joint effort by the Unitarian Universalist Association and the United Church of Christ, OWL aims to help teens understand sexuality. As Detwiler recalls the sessions of three years ago, the pictures demonstrating what sexual intercourse looks like were "shocking to kids, but also helpful. It helped them to grasp another dimension of sexuality." So did the frank discussions about dating norms, the chance to pass around condoms, and informal conversation about the way sex is portrayed in magazines, movies, and music. OWL is among a handful of sex-ed programs that take a position more radical than it may, at first, sound: namely, that sexuality education should actually talk about sex. While events like the spike in teen pregnancies in Gloucester last year or the bulging bellies of youthful pop stars (or Alaskan first daughters) can prompt outcries for better sex ed, most of what we call "sex education" is really about preventing the bad stuff. As one Newton teacher puts it, "It's all been reduced to two issues: teen pregnancy and STDs. That's all really important, but I feel we're losing other important things."

Check out the rest here. This stuff makes sense! Yesterday in the Yes means Yes live chat we got into a conversation about sex education teaching youth that their body can be for pleasure and the fear that that promotes among some parents that this is somehow "pro-sex" or "pornographic." Let's face it, youth are going to do exactly what you are "afraid" of. It is an unfortunate reality that many Americans are afraid of sex that is for the purpose of pleasure, yet our media is obsessed with sexuality (often to the point of sexualizing women.) Schizophrenia anyone?

RELATED:
One more time with feeling: Virginity pledges don't work.
Knocked up by Gossip Girl?
Abstinence shocker: Engaged couples don't want to forgo sex.
Pure lies: Inaugural Edition
Time Magazine hearts Purity Balls
The hypocrisy of abstinence-only education.

I was really glad to see that The New York Times picked up on the misplaced moral panic over teenage sex.

Parents have worried for generations about changing moral values and risky behavior among young people...

...The talk show host Tyra Banks declared a teen sex crisis last fall after her show surveyed girls about sexual behavior. A few years ago, Oprah Winfrey warned parents of a teenage oral-sex epidemic.

The news is troubling, but it's also misleading. While some young people are clearly engaging in risky sexual behavior, a vast majority are not. The reality is that in many ways, today's teenagers are more conservative about sex than previous generations.

But what reporter Tara Parker-Pope left out is that this isn't just about panic over teen sex - it's about about panic over girls having sex.

After all, it's not boys who are being called prostitots and "girls gone wild." It's not boys who are targeted by abstinence only education and purity balls. And it's definitely not boys who have been the subject of books like Prude, Unhooked and Girls Gone Mild. It's us.

But that aside, it was refreshing to see a story about how well young people are doing. And they are. Teenagers are using contraception more (if they haven't been privy to abstinence only education, of course, in which case they don't use contraception and have increased rates of oral and anal sex) and more effectively.

Now if we could just get the media (and conservatives, and anti-feminist authors) to stop obsessing over young women's sex lives...

In the New York Times Sunday magazine cover story yesterday journalist Daniel Bergner goes in search of female sexologists who are asking the question, "What do women want?" in a variety of clinical trials and philosophical posturing. It's all, of course, very confusing and mysterious. But for starters, I thought I'd let Bergner know a few simple things that women DON'T want:

• Misleading and even inaccurate subtitles, like "A postfeminist generation of researchers discovering things Dr. Freud could never have imagined." The very researchers featured in the article identify as feminists. I understand that the NYT wants to sell papers, but these kinds of sensationalistic headlines undermine their integrity as a news organization purportedly trying to attract more and maintain their current feminist readers.


• Photo illustrations that, once again, indicate that the New York Times Magazine thinks that all women are white. Seriously? It's 2009 people.

Now that we've gotten those obvious offenses out of the way, let's look more closely at the piece itself, which is actually quite fascinating. Bergner hangs out with a few really interesting, fairly young scientists and psychologists who are trying to understand what it is that really turns women on. As you might imagine, it's more complicated than any of their academic fields have historically let on.

Lisa Diamond, author of Sexual Fluidity, explores her theory that women generally tend to experience sexual arousal across a spectrum, rather than identifying as hetero, homo, or bi, and that it has a lot more to do with emotional intimacy than the gender of the human being dishing it out. To me this is all sort of "duh" but I understand that the mainstream media, and to much of America, this, in itself, is a shocking take on female desire.

Meredith Chivers, a researcher from Ontario, finds clinical results that jive with Diamond's ethnographic research: women, regardless of sexual orientation, are turned on my just about anything and everything, including a pair of apes fucking. The surprising and important thing about Chivers' research is that she found that there was a larger gap between women's self-identified arousal and their physiological actual arousal (tested by "a little plastic probe that sits in the vagina and, by bouncing light off the vaginal walls, measures genital blood flow"...cool right?!).

Lots of discussion follows about why women wouldn't know when they're turned on. Is it socialization--girls taught not to pay attention to their own desire? Is it something anatomical--it's not like we have erections to give us the loud and clear signal? Chivers sums it up smartly: "The horrible reality of psychological research is that you can't pull apart the cultural from the biological." So there we are.

Another researcher Marta Meana of the University of Nevada at Las Vegas (the one who identified as a feminist, despite the article's framing), has another interesting theory that flies in the face of stereotypes about women:

"The generally accepted therapeutic notion that, for women, incubating intimacy leads to better sex is, Meana told me, often misguided. 'Really,' she said, 'women's desire is not relational, it's narcissistic'--it is dominated by the yearnings of 'self-love,' by the wish to be the object of admiration and sexual need.

Wowzer. I think this is fascinating. In a world where women are often objectified against their will, is the ultimate turn on being able to control and even illicit our own objectification? This line of thinking also holds up when considering the number of women who have fantasies of being dominated, and sometimes raped. Is it sexually arousing to feel a sense of power over your own decision to submit in a world where you feel vulnerable to others domination against your will? (See Stacey May Fowles' essay in Yes Means Yes.)

And if this is the case, is it something we should problematize (i.e. why should my sexuality be determined by my experiences of a patriarchal society? what would it look like if it was truly created from my own original physiology, emotional states, and ideas? is that even possible?) or should we embrace it and get off, counting it as sweet revenge on a half-changed world?

All fascinating questions, not really explored in much depth by Berger, who by virtue of writing this piece, controls how the researchers' voices and ideas get organized and communicated (interesting parallel to how female sexuality gets processed through a male lens so often).

Check out these great takes from our community bloggers:
Why does it have to be either/or...?
I Don't Know What All Women Want--But I Want My Sexuality Respected!
Reconceptualizing Sexuality

Ugh.

Transcript after the jump.

Six months after the FDA rejected Merck and Co.'s request to approve the distribution of Gardasil - the HPV vaccine - to women aged 27 to 45, they've sent a response letter to Merck requesting that they resubmit their request after a full 48-month study. Merck's original application included research from a 24-month period.

As Shark Fu noted, January is Cervical Cancer Awareness Month, so I'm not too surprised that this update is being released now. The good news is that the end of the 48-month study will be by the fourth quarter of 2009. Let's just hope this will be enough.

In the meantime, Merck also requested FDA approval for its use in males last month. I'm definitely curious how that's going to play out.

Women involved in prostitution during the 60s and 70s are demanding that the U.S. and South Korean governments own their role. Previously both governments were eager to heap all the blame on the Japanese government. An excerpt:

While the women have made no claims that they were coerced into prostitution by South Korean or American officials during those years, they accuse successive Korean governments of hypocrisy in calling for reparations from Japan while refusing to take a hard look at South Korea's own history.

"Our government was one big pimp for the U.S. military," one of the women, Kim Ae-ran, 58, said in a recent interview.

Scholars on the issue say that the South Korean government was motivated in part by fears that the American military would leave, and that it wanted to do whatever it could to prevent that.

But the women suggest that the government also viewed them as commodities to be used to shore up the country's struggling economy in the decades after the Korean War.

Read more here.

Well, this is just rich. According to this commentary by Kathryn Lopez for the Washington Times, the reason abstinence-only education doesn't work isn't just because of our slutty, sex-obsessed culture, but because we don't respect teens enough to make their own choices. Because apparently, giving them only one choice is respecting their ability to choose. Huh?

But the problem goes beyond lumping in a simple, cut-and-dried oath with the complicated issue of abstinence education. The conundrum boils down to this: It's not all about sex. It's no shock to anyone who understands human nature, never mind kids, that any virginity pledge that fixates on brute carnal relations is not going to work. Repeating the mantra "Don't do it," even when you've got a teen doing the repeating, isn't enough. How could it work? Popular culture is obsessed with sex. We can't even manage a family dog movie ("Marley & Me") without Jennifer Aniston taking off her clothes. And until that changes, of course, a hormone-mad teenager will be sorely tempted to join in the seemingly ubiquitous fornication, pledge or no pledge.

So naturally, abstinence-only education and purity pledges that focus on brute carnal relations will work? Seriously, am I missing something? She is setting up the perfect rationale for why her agenda is failing. Failing, as in-it-has-been-proven-over-and-over-again, that is doesn't work. But I digress.

Does that mean we pass out condoms at school because we're not going to change the culture anytime soon? No. It means kids need support and reasons engage in activities other than sex. Abstinence has to be about saying "yes" to something in order to work. We need to focus on the idea kids can actually think, and should want more from a relationship than sex. We need to be open to programs that aren't all about copulation, but about character education.

What is up with the fear that passing out condoms in schools means all other extra-curricular activity will stop? That condoms are somehow promoting sex? Young people are having sex, with or without condoms.

Read the rest, mainly for the humor value and all the blatant contradictions.

RELATED:
One more time with feeling: Virginity pledges don't work.
Knocked up by Gossip Girl?
Abstinence shocker: Engaged couples don't want to forgo sex.
Pure lies: Inaugural Edition
Time Magazine hearts Purity Balls

In one of my original posts about feminist sex shops, a few of you mentioned Aphrodite's Toy Box (ATB) in Atlanta. I was intrigued by it when I went to the website, which had a very distinct feel from the other feminist sex shops I have visited. I made the trek to Aphrodite's when I was in Atlanta for my road trip, and it was definitely an experience.

I don't say trek casually, as it was really a hike to find ATB. This may be more about Atlanta than the store itself, but I have to give it a low score on the accessibility front. Wanting to avoid driving since we were spending most of our time doing just that, we ventured to ATB via MARTA (Atlanta's subway). It was a long unfriendly walk from the closest MARTA to ATB, about a mile and on roads that aren't very pedestrian friendly. So definitely take a car if you want to visit the store.

It's a welcoming place, occupying an entire little wooden building off a main road. The majority of their stock was lingerie, corsets and other sexy outfits. They had a good variety of sizes though, covering women from XS to XXXL. Definite bonus. They had a large sexy costume (Halloween style) section, as well as some leather items.

The sex toys themselves were in a separate room, divided by a curtain, which reminded me a bit of the porn section of the video store. I wasn't a big fan of the separation and asked the owner whether it was state law, but she said it was just her preference. There was a state mandated sign in the room "for novelty purposes only." The toys were generally pretty expensive (more than other stores I have shopped in) and there were quite a few that I won't want to sell in my store (like Anal Ease for example--check out what Tristan Taormino has to say for more on why it's not so great). Also, many of the toys were displayed in their original packaging, much of which is kind of gross and sexist. I've realized this is one of the main things that sets feminist sex shops apart--they take a lot of care with how they display things. All of the toys are out of their original packaging (which the stores have little control over) and it really makes a difference for me as a shopper.

The store also offers a bunch of classes, from things like pole dancing, belly dancing and stilleto fitness.

Aphrodite's Toy Box definitely isn't one of my favorite sex shops. I'm not sure if the owner would self-identify it as feminist, although it is definitely woman-owned and woman-oriented. The stock of lingerie and other clothing was impressive, but the toys left a lot to be desired.

From NPR: "Pastor Carnell Borden is changing the minds of conservative Christians about a topic usually kept behind closed doors. He says sex is good and God said so."

I just love these "educational" videos that classes were shown back in the day in efforts to keep The Sex from tainting young ladies' precious vagdes reputations.

My favorite line: "No, girls who park in cars are not really popular. Not even with the boys they park with."

Thanks to Sarah!

This makes me a wee uncomfortable.

It's a shopping bag used by the German condom company Condomi, where the handle is conveniently placed right where peeps' genitals are supposed to me. (Although the bags are of women and men.)

What do you think - offensive or just tacky erotica?

ht/ to Helen!

Dennis Prager's thoughts on why women have no real right to deny men sex (excuse me, the "giving" of their bodies) couldn't be summarized in just one column. No, Prager needed a sequel to his ode to marital rape.

Jesse takes apart the whole piece, so I won't reinvent the wheel - but I will leave you with my favorite part:

Why would a loving, wise woman allow mood to determine whether or not she will give her husband one of the most important expressions of love she can show him? What else in life, of such significance, do we allow to be governed by mood?

What if your husband woke up one day and announced that he was not in the mood to go to work? (Emphasis mine)

And that's all I have to say about that.

Yet another study shows that teenagers who take virginity pledges are just as likely to have pre-marital sex than non-pledgers. And, naturally, after years of being taught that birth control pills are evil and condoms cause cancer - teens who take virginity pledges are less likely to use contraception when they do have sex.

It takes a certain je ne sais quoi to unabashedly argue in favor of marital rape. Of course columnist Dennis Prager doesn't call it that. No no, he prefers to use some sort of bizarre high school logic about how ladies who really love their man will "give her body" on demand.

It is an axiom of contemporary marital life that if a wife is not in the mood, she need not have sex with her husband. Here are some arguments why a woman who loves her husband might want to rethink this axiom.

And here I thought the "if you really loved me" argument was only relegated to after-school specials! How wrong I was.

First, women need to recognize how a man understands a wife's refusal to have sex with him: A husband knows that his wife loves him first and foremost by her willingness to give her body to him. This is rarely the case for women. Few women know their husband loves them because he gives her his body (the idea sounds almost funny).

Haha, because the ideas of men's bodies as commodities is ridiculous, of course! Outside of the insulting notion that men only recognize love through sex, Prager also seems to think that sex is simply about women "giving" their bodies to men. (In fact, he writes some variation of the phrase "give your body" or "deprive your body" multiple times in the article.) The idea that sex could be a mutually enjoyable and wanted expression of love is lost on the dude. Which is actually pretty sad.

Prager goes on to write that men are no more than animals, and that "every man who is sexually faithful to his wife already engages in daily heroic self-control." (Seriously.) But don't worry, gals, Prager has a sensitive side:

Of course, there are times when a man must simply refrain from initiating sex out of concern for his wife's physical or emotional condition.

Talk about a keeper!

Yes Means Yes contributor (and long-time Feministing commenter) Thomas actually has a great essay that gets to the heart of what's wrong with Prager's ideas about sex:

We live in a culture where sex is not so much an act as a thing: a substance that can be given, bought, sold, or stolen, that has a value and a supply-and-demand curve. In this "commodity model," sex is like a ticket; women have it and men try to get it.

In this case, Prager seems to believe that men have an inherent right to the whole frigging box office.

Melissa, Jesse and Jeff have more.

As you all know I'm on a road trip through the South these few weeks. Thanks to everyone who gave me suggestions about places to visit--I'm psyched to check them out. To share things will all of you from my trip I'm going to do some reviews from the road. Mostly sex shops (to continue on with the previous series) but also other cool places I discover along the way.

Our first stop was Asheville, North Carolina. We wandered into Vavavooom, a woman-owned lingerie and sex toy shop. The large window display on a main downtown Asheville street lured me in and the shop did not disappoint. As Lisa Ziemer, co-owner of the store admits, "it's well-lit and well-done."

I had a chance to wander around the store as well as talk to the owner herself, who was working the cash register. The lingerie they carry is tasteful, sexy and erotic all at the same time. A large variety of items without the Fredericks of Hollywood trashy feel. The items were well-priced too. The store primarily stocks lingerie, but also has a small assortment of lotions and oils as well as a small selection of sex toys--mostly the vibrators that coordinate with your ipod. It's definitely not the place to go if you're looking for traditional sex shop staples but for lingerie it's fantastic. Sexy shoes, stockings, night gowns and corsets. They even have a vulva puppet on display! Also for the more masculine folk there are some silk boxer shorts and robes.

One of the huge plus sides of the store is the wide variety of sizes--from extra small to XXXL. Lisa prefers the term "luscious" to plus size, but either way it's a great resource for women of all sizes. The store just opened in December and seems to be successful so far. Lisa says it's the first of it's kind in Asheville and maybe even in the Southeast. The store has some great fitting rooms in the back and will soon be offering workshops from Asheville's only sexologist, Kelley Wolfe.

The Vavavooom website is currently under construction, but check back in the coming months for online shopping and it's definitely worth a visit if you're in Asheville!

For more about Vavavooom, check out this article in the Mountain Xpress.

For more on my love for feminist sex shops check out my review of Smitten Kitten and Sugar.

For the gal who can't afford a pricey hymenoplasty, there's the Artificial Virginity Hymen!

No more worry about losing your virginity. With this product, you can have your first night back anytime. Insert this artificial hymen into your vagina carefully. It will expand a little and make you feel tight. When your lover penetrate, it will ooze out a liquid that look like blood not too much but just the right amount. Add in a few moans and groans, you will pass through undetectable.

Okay, never mind the ick factor. But why oh why are so obsessed with virginity as something that has to be about tightness and blood? Let's not forget that hymens have pretty much nothing to do with virginity - a concept that's pretty tenuous in and of itself. And really, why the obsession at all? (Ahem.)

Via The Frisky.

There is a great post on the Yes Means Yes blog (inspired by Jessica and Jaclyn Friedman's new book, Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape and maintained by the book's contributors) asking what your "real" first time was.

Thomas Macaulay Miller references to Hanne Blank's essay in Yes Means Yes the book, where she discusses the notion of rejecting the general or more "objective" form of what losing your virginity means and looking at it from a more subjective perspective. And then Thomas asks:

What was your first time? Not what other people say, not what "counts" by anyone else's definition; but your own.

Looking at it from this perspective, mine was - hands down - the first time I had an orgasm with a partner. Not because an orgasm legitimized it - but because it was the first time I really let go of all the bullshit and my insecurities. (Sorry mom if you're reading this.)

So let's have it, folks - when was your first time?

Reader Meredith sent along a link to this post by Steven Levitt on the Freakonomics blog:

What Do Prostitutes and Rice Have in Common?

If you believe what you read, then the answer to that question is that they are both examples of one of economics' most elusive objects: Giffen goods. But don't always believe what you read.

A Giffen good is a product or service for which demand rises with price. In other words, if you hold everything else constant, but the good gets more expensive, the quantity consumed will increase.

I don't think it's inherently demeaning to analyze the economics of sex work. I do, however, think an entire post that equates human beings with a GRAIN is pretty fucking unacceptable. Also, note that the post does not compare the commodities purchased -- i.e. sex and rice -- but instead treats sex workers as if they themselves, rather than their services, are bought and sold.

Then, just in case any readers missed the fact that he doesn't think sex workers are human beings, Levitt turns it all into a big joke:

I offer a Freakonomics contest: the commenter who provides the best answer to the question of what prostitutes and rice have in common within the first 24 hours of this post will win their choice of Freakonomics schwag.

You'll be totally shocked to learn that the comments are a cesspool.

So I have a similar contest for you, dear commenters: What do asshole economists and rice have in common? Best answer wins a set of Feministing magnetic poetry.

Nerve.com has a book out documenting their first 10 years which is a series of their best erotica. I have liked Nerve for years and although I haven't agreed with every single story they have put out and I am definitely not turned on by all their stories, I applaud their effort.

As Tracy says at Salon,

Beyond just bringing legitimacy to sex writing and online photography, Nerve has turned the sex-segregated worlds of erotica and pornography into one coed Brooklyn-hip orgy -- and the nauseating clichés and mechanical in-and-out of either genre are not welcome. (Neither are the trite Carrie Bradshaws or Julia Allisons of the world.) The site has given birth to Nerve Personals, a matchmaking service for urban singles that helped make online dating cool, and the über-hip parenting site Babble. The magazine has also launched several media careers, like those of former sex and relationship columnists Em & Lo and writer Grant Stoddard (whose memoir "Working Stiff" is based on his popular sexual guinea-pig column "I Did It for Science").

In the rest of her piece she has an interview with co-founder Rufus Griscom that speaks to this art of balancing writing about sex that is also meaningful and smart, not just to turn men on. I don't always agree with Nerve's content and am a little over the "shock" factor of hipster culture, but I do think they are creative and some of the best sex writing out there that doesn't just hinge on degrading women.

via Salon.

This headline certainly made me pause when it popped into my inbox so I had to share, even if it is for a laugh. According to this study of over 2000 adults, 46 percent of women said they would forgo sex for internet access as opposed to 30 percent of men.

The U.S. survey, which queried 2,119 adults last month, found that the gap grew even wider for both men and woman who were 18 to 34 years old. For woman, the percentage of those willing to skip the sheets in favor of the Web rose to 49 percent, while it climbed to 39 percent for men.

And for women 35 to 44 years old, the figure jumped to 52 percent. (Results as of Monday from CNET's related online poll showed that 30.5 percent of respondents would give up sex for one year, while 26.1 percent would do without Internet access for a year. Almost 40 percent of voters didn't want to sacrifice either.)

For many of us the internet is how we work, so it is not really an option for us to "give up" the internet. Also, many women get sex from the internet as do many men, along with the increase in long distance relationships that also lead to sex via internet. So basically, if the options ain't looking good in your "real life" the internet functions as an excellent way to not only meet people but have sex with them.

And what was the sexual activity of the people questioned? Were they in relationships? Were they single? I think all these have to do with how long people are willing to give up sex. Hey, some women would rather have internet than have sex with the people they can possibly have sex with at any given time.

Thoughts?

I hesitated to write about Bettie Page's death because, frankly, I don't know much about her. I saw The Notorious Bettie Page, and I know she is recognized as an icon by everyone from Reason magazine (which called her "one of America's most enduring brands") to Bust (which refers to her as its matron saint). Like anyone who has achieved icon status, her image is bigger than her biography, and how people (feminists in particular) interpret Bettie Page often is more about their personal view of the world than about Page herself.

So I was deeply curious to read other feminist bloggers' reactions to the news of her death. And unsurprisingly, the reactions reflected the spectrum of feminist views on sex and sexwork.

Feminist sex blogger Carlin Ross, on the blog she shares with Betty Dodson, wrote:

She was just a pin up model but she broke barriers. Not many women had the nerve to be a fetish model in her era. Dita Von Teese never had to testify before Congress.

I remember finding one of my grandfather's Playboy magazines and finding the image of Bettie wearing nothing but a santa hat pinning an ornament on a xmas tree. I sat there for hours looking at her. It was her joy and sexual confidence. She looked so different than the other women in the magazine. She was happy. She was sexually expressive. And she was powerful.

Kate Harding at Broadsheet wrote:

Page said she got into pinup posing because "I could make more money in a few hours modeling than I could earn in a week as a secretary." In light of her status as a darling of third-wave feminists -- between the sexual liberation and the cute bangs, what's not to love? -- it's worth remembering that her fame came, at least in part, from a lack of options.

And Suzie at Echidne of the Snakes wrote:

In interviews, she said she wasn't personally into bondage, but she enjoyed the photo shoots. She said she never thought of her poses as sexual. ... When commenting about her, a lot of men confuse women's sexuality with what women do to please men, to make a living or to get ahead. People talk about how she celebrated her sexuality, blah-de-blah, without noting that photographers paid her to pose in various ways. I wonder how people look at her photos and see only what they want to see.

Is it possible to be both an icon of sexual liberation and an icon of sexwork-as-a-last-resort? The answer, of course, depends on which feminist you ask. Of everything I read about Bettie Page, I think Amanda's post comes closest to my own feelings on Page as an icon. Your thoughts?

From the Sex Worker Outreach Project USA:

December 17th is International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers. This event was created to call attention to hate crimes committed against sex workers all over the globe. Originally thought of by Dr. Annie Sprinkle and started by the Sex Workers Outreach Project USA as a memorial and vigil for the victims of the Green River Killer in Seattle Washington.

International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers has empowered workers from over cities around the world to come together and organize against discrimination and remember victims of violence. During the week of December 17th, sex worker rights organizations will be staging actions and vigils to raise awareness about violence that is commonly committed against sex workers. The assault, battery, rape and murder of sex workers must end. Existing laws prevent sex workers from reporting violence. The stigma and discrimination that is perpetuated by the prohibitionist laws has made violence against us acceptable. Please join with sex workers around the world and stand against criminalization and violence committed against prostitutes.

Ten things you can do to participate after the jump.

UK tabloid The Sun had stays classy by featuring a slide show of "ugly" sex workers' mug shots.

They even quote a cop mocking the women:

One police officer laughed: "It's amazing that some of these women could make a living. There must be a lot of desperate guys out there."

This just makes me sad. Not for the women they're ridiculing, but for humanity. Sigh.

Via the f word.

UPDATE: Seems they may have taken it down. Is it too much to hope it was in a crisis of conscience?

Consumerist brings us a story out of Oxford, MS, where a woman buying Plan B - which is sold over-the-counter to women over 18 years old - was harassed by the pharmacy staff when she tried to purchase the contraceptive.

She said the pharmacy worker started asking for proof of insurance in order to get the pill. My girlfriend refused and asked to speak to someone in charge. The pharmacist then came, and my girlfriend told him she simply wanted Plan B and that her ID should be good enough. The pharmacist then went about getting the pill, but they also seem to have a policy, a lá abortion clinics, of forcing a waiting period of an hour and giving adoption literature to the person requesting the contraceptive. Now, Plan B is just an additional spermicide, not an abortion pill, but that's another can of worms. In the end, my girlfriend demanded the Plan B immediately, and she got it, but not without a fair amount of interference on Walgreens' part. They also insisted on writing down her driver's license number. (Editor's Note: Plan B is not a spermicide, but that's besides the point.)

Proof of insurance? Adoption literature?! And writing down her driver's license number...it's all just too much. Something tells me this woman isn't the only one to be given a hard time about buying this legal contraceptive - and I'm betting not all women who went there knew that they didn't have to put up with this bullshit.

You can contact the Oxford Walgreens at (662) 513-0894 if you want to tell them what's what.

I'd also encourage folks to call the corporate offices and tell them that store number 7757 is harassing women trying to buy Plan B. You can also call them at (877) 250-5823 and ask about their company policy regarding birth control and how they make sure that their pharmacists aren't denying women medication.

Don't let them get away with this.

Because there aren't enough scare tactics out there about crazy college kids hooking up and having The Sex. Sigh.

The trailer of this film kind of looks like a movie version of the chastity-pushing books that are so popular these days. (Naturally, I could be wrong and the film could be perfectly objective, but the fact that the IWF is endorsing it automatically gives me pause.)

What immediately struck me about this clip, however, is that the film shouldn't be about hooking up - but about booze. Perhaps the real problem on college campuses isn't that kids are having sex, but that they're having it drunk. Just a thought.

My take on the Gossip Girl OMG ad campaign, for purposes of this blog post.

Time for a little break in the onslaught of election news and voting tales... This recent article in the Washington Post is basically fundie-bait:

Teenagers who watch a lot of television featuring flirting, necking, discussion of sex and sex scenes are much more likely than their peers to get pregnant or get a partner pregnant, according to the first study to directly link steamy programming to teen pregnancy.

Ok, try to stop laughing over the fact that the Post uses the term "necking." Moving on...

The study, which tracked more than 700 12-to-17-year-olds for three years, found that those who viewed the most sexual content on TV were about twice as likely to be involved in a pregnancy as those who saw the least.

When a study finds two things are "linked," that doesn't necessarily mean one causes the other. Maybe kids who watch more sexy TV have less parental supervision, as Matt at Pushback suggests, and therefore get it on more. But regardless of the study's merits, the abstinence-only-until-hetero-marriage crowd is up in arms, and ready to push their agenda.

In honor of Love Your Body Day, the Feministing Crew has a little message for all you readers out there:

Go Masturbate!

We think that's probably one of the best ways to love your body -- and will probably make you feel better than throwing away a tube of lipstick or an issue of Cosmo. If you need some assistance on the loving your body front, check out one of the awesome sex shops that the feministing readers recommend. And come on, we all know it will make a great antidote to the political mess of late.

Happy Wednesday!

Careful, my book may give you VD!

I figured that my new book would get some negative attention from conservative blogs, but I kinda thought that would happen once the book was, you know...published.

But it seems that there's no reason to wait for pesky things like the actual content of the book to start blogging about what The Purity Myth is all about. So apparently, the purpose of my book is to "turn America's teenagers into raging whores." Woo hoo!

Right Wing News: "But, these hardcore liberal feminists? For them, it's not enough to say that, 'I'm not a virgin' or 'I like to sleep with a lot of guys,' they have to come up with some kind of justification for why it's the best way to live."

Say Anything Blog: "The point is that because of feminists, our society is becoming one huge "Girls Gone Wild," with even little girls being sexualized in our culture."

The Network of Enlightened Women (remember them?): "The feminist movement has formed a strong alliance with the sexual liberation movement, although it wasn't necessary. This book represents this alliance."

Dad Reformed: "The cover says it all. I mean...... who is going to read that garbage??? Is it geared toward a mother and father to push their kids to refrain from abstinence???? I can barely type right now I'm so fired up. ...I can only wonder where she comes up with her standards, or lack there of. ALL of her stances are selfish. What is good for me RIGHT now. I am going to puke."

House of Eratosthenes: "Feminism, somehow, has come to be about everyone who can be a slut, being one."

But Cassy Fiano's post was my fave, "Putting out is SO much better for girls than abstinence." (And it's not just because her blog design uses a rose/gun combo that speaks volumes.)

Gloucester High School, site of the 17 High School girls who got pregnant this past summer, voted to make contraceptives available (with parental consent) at the high school health center last night.

Good move, Gloucester. Now while it's unclear that these young women would have been impacted by this change in policy (remember, it's alleged that at least half of them wanted to get pregnant) this will be a great service to the rest of the teens at this high school.

Want more about this story? Read Courtney's op-ed about the missing pieces in the original Gloucester coverage, Vanessa's take down of girl shaming and Jessica talking about giving credit to Crisis Pregnancy Centers.

I might make this a regular Wednesday afternoon feature. We'll see!

Continuing on the theme of sex and Wednesday's (and don't you all need something uplifting after that debate last night), here is an interview via Babeland with Tristan Taormino. Tristan is the self-professed anal sexpert, and an all around impressive lady. She has been writing a sex column for the Village Voice for years (which was recently cancelled, sadly). She led one of the first sex workshops I ever went to, at Wesleyan University a few years ago. She has a great story about how she was going to go to law school, but she decided to become a sex writer instead. Tristan has a new book about open relationships called Opening Up.

An exerpt from the interview, available on Babeland's blog in two parts:

What was the most interesting thing you learned from the couples you interviewed for Opening Up? I didn't talk to just couples - I interviewed singles, couples, triads, quads, circles of five, lots of different combinations! I learned so much from each person I talked to and realized that life really is in the details. No one does non-monogamy the same way. It's all about crafting a relationship that's custom made for the people involved.

What is your favorite anal sex toy? I cannot pick just one! Of course, I have to say the Tristan butt plug from Vixen, since I helped design it and it's named for me. I think the Mistress is the best dildo for strap-on anal sex, especially for beginners. Now it comes with a vibrator, too, which rocks.

What is your favorite non-anal sex toy? I have fallen in love with a new strap-on harness recently, the Jaguar Harness from Aslan. In Cherry Red. The leather is smooth and gorgeous, it fits like a glove, and it's so comfortable, I could wear it all day!

Happy Wednesday!

The Associated Press reports that in Israel's Orthodox Jewish community, there are groups of extremists out to "stamp out behavior they consider unchaste."

They hurl stones at women for such "sins" as wearing a red blouse, and attack stores selling devices that can access the Internet.

In recent weeks, self-styled "modesty patrols" have been accused of breaking into the apartment of a Jerusalem woman and beating her for allegedly consorting with men.

Terrifying. One 38 year-old man defended the actions of the "patrols," saying that "these breaches of purity and modesty endanger our community...If it takes fire to get them to stop, then so be it."

Thanks to Krystel for the link.

Advice columnist "Dear Abby" thinks that birth control pill costs should fall on the ladies' shoulders. Ahem.

DEAR ABBY: My boyfriend and I have been living together for a year. We split all the bills -- rent, utilities, etc. -- in half.

A few nights ago I asked him how he felt about paying for half my birth control pills, which amounts to $40 a month. Because neither of us is ready for children, I think we should share the expense.

Am I out of line to ask my boyfriend to split the cost with me? This has become a hot topic at work. The guys don't agree with me, and surprisingly, most of the women don't, either. What is your take on this? -- ALL IN LOVE IS FAIR

DEAR ALL: As I see it, there are two kinds of expenses when people share a dwelling: joint expenses and those that are personal. Prescription drugs usually fall into the latter category. Unless you are prepared to pay half the cost of his prescription drugs -- including Viagra --- my advice is to back down on this one.

Viagra is not like birth control pills. Not even close. And birth control is personal, sure, but it's something that benefits this woman and her boyfriend. I don't care if it's condoms, pills, and IUD or any other kind of birth control or STI protection - people in a committed relationship should share the cost.

Anyone have any experiences with a partner or former partner who wouldn't cough up the cash? Spill it in comments...

Check out the following excerpt from Michael Kimmel's new book, Guyland:

Most hookups are not great sex. In our survey, in their most recent hookups, regardless of what actually took place, only 19% of the women reported having an orgasm, as compared to 44% of the men. When women received cunnilingus, only about a quarter experienced an orgasm, though the men who reported they had performed cunnilingus on their partner reported that she had an orgasm almost 60% of the time.

The orgasm gap extends to intercourse as well. Women report an orgasm 34 percent of the time; the men report that the women had an orgasm 58 percent of the time. (The women, not surprisingly, are far better able to tell if the men had orgasms, and the reporting rates are virtually identical).

The data Kimmel is referencing appears to be representative of heterosexual contact only, though it could use some clarification. In any case, HOLY SHIT.

It's not that I'm shocked by these numbers. I've heard enough horrendous hetero hook-up stories to know that they're usually not all that orgasmic, or even all that pleasurable, for the ladies involved. I'm one of those who believes that long term relationships (or at least multiple hook ups with the same partner) are pretty necessary to figure out how your two unique chemistries best match up for good sex (widely defined). This, of course, goes for queer lovin' as well.

What really made my jaw drop was the discrepancy between the way women reported orgasms and the way men reported women's orgasms. As Kimmel put it, "Many women, it turns out, fake orgasm."

Okay, so let's talk about this. Again. (Samhita and Jess have already written great stuff on this in the past.)

First and foremost, you deserve pleasure. You deserve orgasms. You deserve to be honest about the presence or absence of orgasms. And of course, every sexual encounter doesn't have to lead to orgasm. Sometimes it's not happenin' for various reasons. You don't have to explain yourself. You don't have to perform some sort of ego saving climax.

I know, I know, sometimes it seems like it's easier, especially with someone you don't know, to just pretend that the hook up is awesome so that you don't have to explain why it's not, teach some guy about basic female anatomy, or deal with his frowny face grumpy pants routine. But the path of least resistance, my feminist friends, is not cool in this case.

It's not cool for a couple of critical reasons. It's not cool because you deserve better--both physically and in terms of your own integrity. But it's also not cool to the rest of the poor gals who might be next in line with this poor fool who doesn't know where the frickin' clit is. Or whatever. You see where I'm going with this.

It is your feminist duty to 1) seek pleasure and feel entitled to it and 2) to make the world a more orgasmic place for other women.

If the last girl that had taken that dude home had taught him a thing or two about a thing or two, you wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. You hear me?

So, as often happens to me on Wednesday afternoons, shit can get a little depressing. You know, cause the economy is kind of failing, politicians are crazy, the trolls are out in full force and every day there is another immigration raid.

So you know what I do when the state of the world starts getting me down? I revert to my favorite topic of all time (and the ultimate picker upper) SEX. Yup, yup kids. It's a guaranteed way to get your mind off the economy, John McCain's ridiculousness and the general misogyny of the world.

This weekend, after an intense few days at the Critical Resistance conference, I had the pleasure of stopping by the Folsom Street Fair. Never heard of it? Well, it's probably the most unique thing I've ever witnessed.

Folsom is a street fair that happens during an eight day Leather festival in SF. Basically, it's a space for all those whose sexual interests and appetites might involve things like leather (you know, wearing it and such) or also other alternative practices, like bondage, domination, sadomasochism. I won't get into too much detail, but suffice to say there is something for everyone.

What was particularly cool about being at the fair was just how open and accepting the atmosphere was. For a group who usually has to keep their sexual desires and practices underwraps and behind closed doors, it was nice to see the community having a day to let it all hang out (pun intended). I also think it's refreshing to see alternative sexual lifestyles (that are heavily based in philosophies about consent) supported and celebrated.

It is not effective, it is not on the market and would take millions of dollars to make legal, but some scientists in Australia have found that you can block ducts that release sperm, "zap" sperm, or interrupt its production.

Professor Derek Abbott and his team from the University of Adelaide in South Australia have invented the first remote-controlled key fob that allows men to control a valve that can switch their sperm flow on and off as required.

The size of half a rice grain, the "fertility control micro-valve" is injected by a doctor into the vas deferens, the duct that carries sperm from the testes, a process that needs only a local anaesthetic. The valve can then open and close to control sperm flow out of the body.

I think the question is, not only will it be made legal, but will men use it?

"Men want new contraceptive methods," says Elaine Lissner, director of the non-profit Male Contraception Information Project in San Francisco. "A decade ago demand wasn't there and it was assumed women wouldn't trust men to take charge of birth control anyway. That has changed."

I do think there are men that want alternative forms of birth control. I know many of my boyfriends would have preferred other methods to birth control than me using hormonal birth control that made me irritable and have a decreased sex drive. One of my boyfriends even had a vasectomy, which I thought was great, but not for everyone obviously.

I think it is interesting that it is so difficult to the find the money to support research and development of effective male birth control. Yet, there are so many different kinds of women's birth control. Why is birth control always the responsibility of women? Also, several of the side effects listed are assumed side effects to the birth control that women have been using for decades. Why is it OK for women to take on the burden of not only taking birth control, but dealing with its side effects, yet it is a red flag for men?

Now don't get me wrong, I don't want anyone taking any form of birth control or trying any method without knowing fully well what its side effects are going to be, however, I am just noting that these same considerations weren't as fully considered when it was a woman's reproductive health at stake.

Would you or your partner use remote control sperm control?

There is a disparity in arrests for sex workers, versus pimps and clients according to a new study, looking at sex work and incarceration in Minnesota. Sex workers reported that they went to jail more often than their pimp did or their clients. Obviously an example of how the burden falls on women's bodies and choices, as opposed to looking at the demand for the product, the potential source of the conditions for sex work.

However, does an increase in policing help these conditions? Or make it worse and push things further underground?

Can sex work be looked at in the same way that drugs are? What would it look like if the legal system went after buyers and users in the same way it does dealers? And I think the role of sexism makes it very very different, but I think the role of race is a key factor in both cases to determine how in fact the criminal justice system treats drug dealers and sex workers.

Thanks to Brad for the link.

So I am actually impressed that this young woman had the foresight to know that our virginity obsessed media would eat up her story of selling her virginity to pay for graduate school. Watch the clip here.

And this clip doesn't disappoint. The battle of conflating women's "empowerment" and feminism with these vapid moments of political opportunism continues. I guess for her selling her virginity is empowering, except that it relies on really sexist ideas of women's sexuality and the myth that there is something special about virginity.

The comments from other people are even better..."she is doing it with a stranger, it should be special!" or "she doesn't look like a virgin...!" It is sad that a supposed respected media source would pick up a story that hinges on making spectacle of women's virginity.

CNN asks, "so if it is true and she has held on to it for so many years, why does we want to part with it now in such a public ways?" She responds that we live in a capitalistic society and she wants to capitalize off of this.

Homegirl knows exactly what she is doing and the media is playing right into it. Yes, America is that retro in its idea of sexuality that someone "losing their virginity for money!!!1!" is newsworthy. Next month when her solo album comes out or her Playboy centerfold, we will know we have been duped!

So, you all know about my penchant for feminist sex shops. I've already written about my love for Babeland and Smitten Kitten, and you all shared your favorite stores around the country.

I'm so into these places that I've decided to try and visit as many of them as I can (anyone want to help me finance this?) and then review the stores for all of you. Call it a Feminist Sex Shop review if you will.

This weekend I had the pleasure of visiting Baltimore's only feminist sex shop, Sugar. If their mission doesn't make you want to shop there, maybe this review will. Living in Washington DC (as I do) this is the closest feminist sex shop that I know of. At least for now--plans to open one in DC are in the works! So I took a little day trip up to see what Sugar was all about.

So similar to Ann, I too spend a good deal of time reading about vintage fashion online. Guilty pleasure if you will but can also be a resourceful way to dress on the cheap. But sometimes my late night google searches lead me to the funniest places. Such as this gem. It is a wiki-how to be a femme fatale.

1. Speak in a low voice. Not creepy low, just attractive low. Practice some vocal exercises for a few weeks and it will become habit. Listen to Scarlett Johanssen speak for an example of this kind of voice.

2. Wear dark, sexy, retro clothes. Not too gothic-looking, though. Think Angelina Jolie in the mid-90's. Subtle, well-cut clothing that draws attention to you, but in a tasteful way. Stick to colors like black, maroon, and emerald green. Look for silk cocktail dresses, dark-wash, high-waisted jeans, expensive-looking, dramatic jewelry, and fishnet tights.

4. Be "one of the guys". This means means holding your own with the guys in their poker/pool/video games and occasionally winning. You'll earn respect and allure as a result. But dont loose your femenine side trying to hang out with men.

5. Be mysterious. Dont let everybody know what you are feeling or what's going on. The very mystery proves to be the allure of the femme fatale.

What does it look like when someone follows all this advice? Eeeek! Aside from the patronizing advice about not being too creepy, becoming too masculine, or having a brain (#12) isn't it funny that being a quirky, individualistic, educated, fashionable, sexy woman makes you fatal? Le sigh!

My sisters, some of us are like this without trying and without having to fit it into what is sexy for men. Let's try and keep it that way.

This one seems like a good news, sketchy news kind of situation to me.

The good news

Local researchers have found that mothers' views about premarital sex don't affect their decisions on whether their pre-teen or teenage daughters should get the vaccine against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

The survey, by a team at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, appears to refute the perception that mothers who opt against their daughters receiving the vaccine for the human papillomavirus do so because they oppose sex before marriage.

The study's lead author Susan Rosenthal said, "This is a decision about parenting, vulnerability and vaccine attitudes, not sexuality...Mothers who haven't had their daughter vaccinated yet most often said they want more time to learn about the vaccine."

The perhaps-sketch news

The study was in part funded by Merck, the vaccine's manufacturer.

Thoughts?

If I didn't know better I would think it was my birthday - because it's not often that an anti-feminist organization gives you a gift like this one.

The Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute* has put out Sense & Sexuality, a handy little anti-feminist guide to sex by none other than Miriam Grossman, author of the slut-shaming book Unprotected (not to be confused with the similarly titled slut-shaming book Unhooked).

Seriously, every page is priceless - so it's hard to know what to highlight. But here are some of my favorite tidbits.

On the biology of why dudes will fuck you and dump you:

When it comes to sex, oxytocin, like alcohol, turns red lights green. It plays a major role in what's called "the biochemistry of attachment." Because of it, you could develop feelings for a guy whose last intention is to bond with you. You might think of him all day, but he can't remember your name.

On the dangers of "hooking up":

As the number of casual sex partners in the past year increased, so did signs of depression in college women.

On why women with HPV are unlovable drop-outs:

Even though these infections are common, and usually disappear with time, learning you have one can be devastating. Natural reactions are shock, anger, and confusion. Who did I get this from, and when? Was he unfaithful? Who should I tell? And hardest of all: Who will want me now? These concerns can affect your mood, concentration, and sleep. They can deal a serious blow to your self esteem. And to your GPA.

On why you should get to the baby-making ASAP:

Remember that motherhood doesn't always happen when the time is right for you; there's a window of opportunity, then the window closes.

On wishing herpes on fictional characters:

It's easy to forget, but the characters on Grey's Anatomy and Sex in the City are not real. In real life, Meredith and Carrie would have warts or herpes. They'd likely be on Prozac or Zoloft.

But really and truly it's page 16, in its entirety, that's my favorite. Check it after the jump. Then laugh yourself to sleep tonight. I know I will.

*The organization that also brought you one of the top 10 anti-feminist videos and the "bring back the hope chest" campaign.

Good article, not-so-good accompanying picture.

After the Red Cross conducted a census of sex workers in an effort to curb the spread of HIV, authorities Bauchi, NIgeria identified 320 women from the study and started to arrest them.

Our correspondent says the Sharia commission seems to have been prompted to act by the perception that it was unable to enforce a ban on commercial sex workers in the state.

The Sharia commission normally liaises with the police, he says, but this time they acted directly, using their own security force to arrest the sex workers.

It is not clear how many of the women have already been arrested.

They could face flogging or prison terms.

Following the arrests, the Red Cross has halted its census.

Horrifying that an attempt to improve women's health could be turned around and used to punish them. What I want to know is how they got a hold of the census?

Thanks to Matt for the link.

Anything that's going near your delicates shouldn't have any razor-like abilities. Seems pretty logical to me. But don't tell that to the creators of the Womaniser, the sex toy that opens up to reveal it's a shaver. *Shudder*

If a vibrator is going to be a transformer, there has to be something better it can change into...any ideas?

Story and pic via Shiny Shiny

Via NPR's "What's the New What?" according to Youth Radio, sex without condoms shows a longer term commitment for youth, as opposed to a walk down the aisle.

Listen here.

My immediate response is of course, "oh HELL no," but I get what they are saying and I respect that. I just want to hear what some young women have to say about it. And how many of these non-condom=commitment situations work out. I do think this is one of those work arounds to heteronormativity. Youth these days and especially working class youth of color don't benefit from straight privilege the way middle class Americans do, so new symbolism replaces old types. And I of course don't think you have to get married to have a baby. But is it as symbolic for young women?

Thoughts?

Tracy Clark-Flory has a really interesting piece up at Salon about the chastity industrial complex that's so pervasive these days--abstinence only education, a slew of books about the "dangers" of hooking up, and purity balls among the primary culprits. I really like Clark-Flory's take because she's not afraid of getting personal.

I'm a 24-year-old member of the hookup generation -- I've had roughly three times as many hookups as relationships -- and, like innumerable 20-somethings before me, I've found that casual sex can be healthy and normal and lead to better adult relationships.

So many of the people arguing that "casual" sex (what they really mean is pre-marital) hurts young women rely on stories from college girls about how sucky it is not to have a boyfriend or how having "friends with benefits" made them depressed. So it's nice to see some anecdotal battle-back!

Some of you may already know that I'm working on a book about this culture of purity and chastity, and how it's America's obsession with virginity, not Girls Gone Wild and hooking up, that's fucking young women up. And Clark-Flory's piece really gets to some important themes:

[P]erhaps young women are putting feminist ideals of equality into sex by refusing shame and claiming the traditionally male side of the stud/slut double standard. Also, the idea that a woman has to test a man by withholding sex -- as many abstinence advocates actually argue -- relies on a paradigm of inequality in which women are forced to rely on such desperate power plays. It isn't that feminism has taught women to have sex like men, as the argument commonly goes, but that withholding sex isn't women's sole superpower; coitus isn't women's kryptonite.

I'd just add (because it's all I'm thinking about these days!) that there are two things that really, really get to me about the chastity crap.* The first is how it's assumed that women don't like sex, but that we're just using it to get what we really want--husbands and stability. Women liking sex never enters the equation with purity-pushers; if we're having pre-marital sex we're either self-hating or fooling ourselves. And if we do actually enjoy sex (the horror!), then we're simply bad people--sluts and whores the lot of us! And that's the second thing that bugs me--how these books put a moral value on sex, specifically the sex that women have. They've taken the joy out of sex, and commodified it (I'm "saving" it! I'm "worth" the wait!) more than any Girls Gone Wild commercial ever could.

*And no, I'm not saying being chaste is crap, but the way that it's presented to young women as an either or--chastity/promiscuity, good/bad--is incredibly crappy.

If you missed the New York Times op-ed this last weekend on the "sex test" at the Olympics game, be sure to read it here. Jennifer Finney Boylan, an English professor at Colby, analyzes the Olympic history of testing whether athletes were "legitimately" female. The Olympic committee's struggle to define female--by chromosome? by secondary sex characteristics? by genitalia?--is a fascinating microcosm of our larger societal struggle. Boylan writes:

Maybe...Olympic officials have to learn to live with ambiguity, and make peace with a world in which things are not always quantifiable and clear.
That, if you ask me, would be a good thing, not just for Olympians, but for us all.

Beautifully, beautifully put.

Last week I got an email from the Family Research Council containing a WARNING from Big Tony Perkins about "a series of videos" produced by a Planned Parenthood affiliate in Washington state that were "so revolting that members of my staff were visibly shaken."

What scary reproductive health topics were so disgusting? Were they close-up videos of STIs? Images of two men kissing? Even worse! They featured a girl talking, without shame, about touching herself! Gasp! If you can bear it, watch the offending video (I think it's pretty work-safe. But, Family Research Council warns, "the material is highly inappropriate for adults."):

The great irony, to me, is that this video is promoting abstinence from partner-sex. Conservative groups like the Family Research Council are usually all about that message. Apparently not when it means women are enjoying their bodies without shame.

Transcript after the jump, along with a special video dedication to Tony Perkins.

When my friend Jen visited me last week, I decided to take her by Toys in Babeland. She once worked in a not so feminist sex toy shop out west and I wanted her to see how the feminists do it. As she was discussing the elusive G spot with the counter person, I wandered over and the woman, who I would later learn was Amber (the amazing human rights masters student featuring awesome tattoos) said, "Hey, aren't you Courtney from feministing?"

I've been recognized in a few places in my day, but I have to say that this one topped the list. You know you're doing something right when the woman who teaches perfect strangers where their g spots are sees you and smiles in recognition. Thanks Amber. Keep on keepin' on.

Are you sick of only wealthy women being able to afford "designer vaginas"? Well worry no more! Now hating your genitals is easy, affordable, and comes in packaging that looks like a cross between My Little Pony and White-Out!

Liquid Virgin "work to temporarily tighten the walls of the vagina." The drops also contain Potassium Alum, which according to the website (and I'm super curious as to why they felt like sharing this fact), often appears in cartoons: "The character eats some Alum and their mouth is shown to pucker up. Often seen on Tom & Jerry."

With the Tom & Jerry seal of vaginal approval, how could I say no?

Via Feministe.

Sitting in on the interview with creators of the Midwest Teen Sex Show. They are awesome. When asked why they started MTSS they said, "We started by doing something that was funny and entertain ourselves." It has turned into one of the most effective forms of harm reduction around young people and sex, along with educational and honest.

The moderator asks, "Why is humor so effective in trying to reach this audience?" They reply, "Sex is funny, repackaging info in a way people will listen. Not talking down to kids (and sometimes) we are making fun of them. We are building a relationship with youth through humor."

In my opinion everything should have more humor and MTSS is a great use of humor while putting out information for young people around sex and sexuality. Because of the nature of their content they have gotten negative feedback along with positive, but hey, isn't is always like that.

When asked about their favorite episode they chose this the older boyfriend.

They also gave a Feministing shout out from the stage! Thanks Nikol and Guy. We love you!

From Janice Turner, who teaches Power of Purity classes in Alabama:

"Girls give in to sex not because they want sex - it's like a hug. If they can get that from their fathers, they won't need it from a boyfriend."

Oh, puke. There are lots of things I'd like to get from my dad - a phone call, advice about what to get my mom for her birthday, a run in the park with our dogs - but some stand-in for fucking definitely isn't one of them.

Dowd has stooped to a new low. Paraphrasing a priest on advice on what to look for in a husband. I guess I can see on some level, since marriage is frequently a religious thing, but in general, this gets a no. And by the way, apparently we should be looking for man-robots that have never experienced any trauma or disruption in their life.

Father Pat Connor, a 79-year-old Catholic priest born in Australia and based in Bordentown, N.J., has spent his celibate life — including nine years as a missionary in India — mulling connubial bliss. His decades of marriage counseling led him to distill some “mostly common sense” advice about how to dodge mates who would maul your happiness.

Keep reading.

Oh my, even I can't comment. I just want to clarify, that it is not that I completely disagree with this advice. I just think it is unrealistic and feeds into those crazy ideals we have to internalize and then adds more pressure on our relationships. And I do think that his not having experience does effect how much of an expert he can be. I don't think you have to have experienced things just to comment on them, but I do think relationships is one of those things that is frequently case by case and very much based on experience.

What a dick. A Boston Herald op-ed covers this "Horribles parade" in MA:

At this year’s Horribles parade in Beverly Farms, the biggest laughs - and loudest complaints - were inspired by a float mocking the “Give It Up” girls of Gloucester High. Ladies from “The Fahm” adorned themselves in fake baby bumps and danced to “I Got It From My Momma.” Guys tossed condoms and waved signs rhyming words in a decidedly family-unfriendly manner.

Pretty horrendous, no? Apparently, this guy thinks it's appropriate to shame the pregnant students at Gloucester High:

..Other communities and families send a far clearer message condemning teen sex. There are 15-year-olds who know that if they make the wrong choice, they will be greeted with embarrassment and disappointment, not on-campus day care.

When the same girl shows up at the school clinic for five pregnancy tests in one month, shouldn’t somebody be mocking her for it? In fact, isn’t promoting shame through mockery our civic duty? (Emphasis mine)

He also condemns comprehensive sex ed supporters for rejecting the use of shame as a value and tactic to woo kids away from sex.

I'm actually glad the author published this, because at least he's exposing the truth by standing proud to what the abstinence-only movement feeds on.

Talk about shame.

h/t to Emmeline.

Time magazine has a story about a Massachusetts high school that has apparently started a trend among their girls – to be mommies:

As summer vacation begins, 17 girls at Gloucester High School are expecting babies—more than four times the number of pregnancies the 1,200-student school had last year.

After some digging, school officials found that almost half of the pregnant students had actually made a pact to get pregnant and raise their kids together. But the school still isn’t willing to offer contraception to their students. And Time implies that meeting teen mothers’ needs in the school may be the problem:

The high school has done perhaps too good a job of embracing young mothers. Sex-ed classes end freshman year at Gloucester, where teen parents are encouraged to take their children to a free on-site day-care center. Strollers mingle seamlessly in school hallways among cheerleaders and junior ROTC. "We're proud to help the mothers stay in school," says Sue Todd, CEO of Pathways for Children, which runs the day-care center.(Emphasis mine)

So is that the solution? Stigmatizing teen mothers and denying them an education? Blaming the prevalence of teen pregnancy in a school on sex ed and family-friendly school policies and denying birth control to sexually active students is definitely not going to help this situation.

The school’s nurse practitioner Kim Daly and the school’s clinic medical director Dr. Brian Orr actually attempted to get permission to offer birth control to the students, but were shut down with what seems like a "How dare you??" response. Mayor Carolyn Kirk said, "Dr. Orr and Ms. Daly have no right to decide this for our children." What the mayor doesn’t seem to understand is that it wouldn’t be their decision at all, but the students’. Both Daly and Orr resigned in protest.

There’s obviously a lot to address at this school and in the community, but the focus of blame is in the wrong direction.

Thanks to all the readers who alerted us to this story!

All hail Dr. Sue! (NSFW.)

Transcript after the jump for those who are at work and can't listen to audio of a 60-something woman imitating sex noises.

I was so excited to go see Sex and the City. Like most feminists with any shred of race or class analysis, I have always had a love hate relationship with Sex and the City. There were things about that show that were so god awful that I literally had to tune them out completely to enjoy the show. As a woman of color inundated by media that fails to ever acknowledge who I am or that what I am is valid, I am used to this type of spectatorship. And Sex and the City has always been one of those shows that always made it worth it, because for better or for worse, the show always made me feel better, especially if I was feeling heartbroken (which has been often!).

So naturally I was most excited to go see the movie with two of my best gal pals. Unfortunately, it did not live up to my lofty expectations. Disappointment would be an understatement. Did I laugh? I sure did, but I am stupid like that sometimes. And honestly, I couldn't tell if I was laughing at the movie or with it for most of it.

Fun facts about your clitoris:

• The clitoris rivals the penis in size.
• "The vaginal wall is, in fact, the clitoris."
• "If you lift the skin off the vagina on the side walls, you get the bulbs of the clitoris - triangular, crescental masses of erectile tissue."
• [T]he clitoris is more than just its glans - the "little hill"
• "There's nothing quite like the shape of a clitoris."
• "The glans are dense with nerve endings and receptors - all the vibration and sensation is there."
• The bulk of it is shaped like a pyramid.
• Its base forms the external genitalia or vulva; its triangular "walls" are wrapped around the urine-carrying tube known as the urethra and the vagina.
• When aroused, the whole structure becomes engorged.
• "They're designed to stimulate a much larger area."

No wonder, after reading this, Andrew Sullivan claims "clitoris envy."

Click here for an extremely educational video on the clitoris (internal and external).

If you missed the documentary, The Education of Shelby Knox, you have to check it out. It is an amazing film about the development of a feminist conscience, the connection between individual courage and community change, and sex education policy.

You can also check out Shelby's current work, traveling the country and speaking her truth about sex, feminism, and America. She's getting on the blog train.

We have written about hymenoplasty before. It is when women undergo a surgical procedure to restore their hymen and create the illusion of virginity, including the "bleeding" that should occur on that fated wedding night. So I suppose it shouldn't be a shock that so many women in Europe are opting for this surgery in the Muslim community. In discussing the fate of one woman who has undergone the surgery the NYTimes reports,

Like an increasing number of Muslim women in Europe, she had a hymenoplasty, a restoration of her hymen, the vaginal membrane that normally breaks in the first act of intercourse.

“In my culture, not to be a virgin is to be dirt,” said the student, perched on a hospital bed as she awaited surgery on Thursday. “Right now, virginity is more important to me than life.”

Hmmm, I don't know the motivation to feature this particular quote, but I think being a virgin is something that is heralded in most communities around the world, not just the Muslim community. Women are often scrutinized for their virginity and chastised, shamed, insulted, etc., if they do not have "it" come wedding night.

According to the article it has been noted that there has been an increase in the number of Muslim women wanting "certificates of virginity" because now they are in Europe and having more sex. Perhaps it is the shift in setting and through access to new norms around sexuality, but I don't buy it. I think it is a stretch to suggest that due to European influence and its supposed sexually free environment Muslim women are having more sex. That is a leap, I think they were always having sex, but working around the consequences in different ways.

Hymenoplasty is becoming common in many parts of the world. And while I think it is good to know it is happening, let's not forget the underlying message. While we might want to believe a sexual revolution happened in the Western world that the oppressed women of the world are still catching up to, it is actually untrue. Puritanical sex ethics reign supreme in many parts of the world, including Europe and the United States. And it is not about being able to have sex or not, it is the way it makes a man feel on his wedding night to know that another man has had sex with her. It is the control of female sexuality pure and simple because if she did it before she has already been used by another man, she has become property of the one before, as opposed to the one she married. It creates that inexplicable fear and anxiety that is often the basis of misogyny.

Understanding this, we do have to keep in mind that women are often put in great harm is they can't prove that they are virgins on their wedding night. We can't blame them for self-preservation.

Only in a world this patriarchal is there an expensive, painful and dangerous practice for women to undergo that will create an illusion of her virginity to indulge the male ego.

For a more humorous take the youth at YO! via yoblogger take on this topic.