Category Archives: women

Sex: Who Gets Screwed?

One day I asked my class to think of slang words for sex. I got the following list:

Screw, f-, bang, nail, ram, smash, smack that, beat those, cut, boning, git-in-em-guts, get some trim, get some grip, do it, get some pussy, nasty time, make love.

I don’t know about you, but I only want to do one of those things.

Most of this list suggests a good deal of violence. And who gets screwed, rammed, nailed, cut, boned, banged, smacked, beaten, and f’d, anyway?

Really, it isn’t pretty.

The music I grew up on offered the B-52’s singing “Bang, bang, bang (on the door baby),” David Bowie intoning, “Wham, bam, thank you ma’am,” and the Tubes celebrating the raw tuna of a sushi girl. A nice piece of meat.

A DJ interrupts to suggest, “Could you trim that thing?”

It all sounds so appealing.

And we wonder why women indicate less sexual interest than men on surveys. But these words are only a small tip of that iceberg.

Popular Posts on BroadBlogs
Does Sexual Objectification Lead to Bad Sex?
Men, Women React to Male/Female Nudity
Men Are Naturally Attracted To Unnatural Women

 

Women Must Be Free To Follow Their Conscience on Contraception

 

Catholic Bishops continue to plead that they must be free to exercise their conscience on contraception, which entails preventing women from exercising that same right. If there’s any conflict of rights here women should win out since it is their bodies and well-being that are at stake.

And shouldn’t the rights of individuals take precedence over the rights of institutions (whatever the conscience of an institution is)?

The Bishops would not even be the one’s buying the contraceptives. Women would.

In patriarchal societies men feel that they should govern women’s bodies. In some places women must get permission from their husbands to see a doctor. And now these male church leaders want to take on that role for women employees?

As Gail Collins at the New York Times points out, the Bishops can teach, but they can’t force others to align with their teachings.

Besides, why don’t other religions have similar issues? As Times columnist Nick Kristof observes,

I wondered what other religiously affiliated organizations do in this situation. Christian Science traditionally opposed medical care. Does The Christian Science Monitor deny health insurance to employees?

“We offer a standard health insurance package,” John Yemma, the editor, told me.

That makes sense. After all, do we really want to make accommodations across the range of faith? What if organizations affiliated with Jehovah’s Witnesses insisted on health insurance that did not cover blood transfusions? What if ultraconservative Muslim or Jewish organizations objected to health care except at sex-segregated clinics?

Or should employers, insurers or doctors refuse access to a drug or medical procedure because a disease arose from a practice they disagree with on religious grounds, whether that be the use of drugs, alcohol, tobacco, meat, sex outside of marriage, a patient’s sexual orientation, etc., etc.?

And anyway, religious people should sacrifice for their own convictions. They should not ask non-members to sacrifice for their church’s beliefs.

No surprise that political right-wingers have jumped on the bandwagon, given their pattern of seeking to strip women’s rights to their bodies, health and well-being. The far-right has tried to defund Planned Parenthood and some now want HHS to strip contraceptive coverage requirements for all employers, religious or not. Extreme conservatives have worked to prevent abortions that could save women’s lives, they have tried to redefine rape into “no rape,” and some have backtracked on protecting women from domestic violence. In fact, this past year has been widely regarded as a war on women by the extreme right.

Religious liberty? No this is about acting “severely conservative” with the aim of controlling women.

Popular Posts on BroadBlogs
Markets Must Be Free; Women Must Be Constrained
Why Is the Right-Wing Attacking Women?
Modesty Objectifies Women Says Nude Egyptian

Nude Men Seem Less Intelligent

The more skin women reveal, the less men see them as intelligent or empowered. Instead, nudity promotes the notion that women are sensitive, “feeling” creatures.

Turns out the perception runs both ways with women seeing men as less intelligent and less competent when they show skin, too. In fact, simply “taking off a sweater — or otherwise revealing flesh — can significantly change the way a mind is perceived” say researchers.

And as psychologist, Kurt Gray of the University of Maryland observed:

This effect can happen even without the removal of clothes. Simply focusing on someone’s attractiveness, in essence concentrating on their body rather than their mind, makes you see her or him as less of an (empowered) agent and more of an experiencer.

Women see partially-clothed men as more sensitive, too, and are disinclined to hurt them. Likewise, most men don’t want to harm unclothed women, either. Perhaps nakedness makes people seem more vulnerable so that we want to protect them.

Interesting. There’s no evidence that showing skin makes men want to rape, and it looks like the opposite effect is more likely.  (Of course, some sexual fetishes do combine nudity and violence so the effect isn’t uniform, but that still doesn’t mean nudity causes a person to want to harm.)

Practical take-away? Showing skin can make us seem less competent at work. But it can be great in the bedroom, where it’s all about feeling.

Popular Posts on BroadBlogs
Anything Good About Being A Sex Object?
Men, Women React to Male/Female Nudity
What Happens When You Beat A Sex Object?

Passion + Intimacy + Commitment = Consummate Love

Love is complicated, arising in many forms.

Passion, intimacy, and commitment are the three pillars of couple-love, says psychologist, Robert Sternberg in his “triangular theory.” We may love based on intimacy, passion, or commitment, or any combination of the three.

We may also experience different aspects of love at different stages of a relationship, and move in and out of various types of love over time. Let’s take a look at a few possibilities.

Passionate love

Early love is marked by the infatuation of “passion.” Giddy, and intense with longing, the lovebirds feel the heart-thumping arousal of the yearning heart. Can’t eat, can’t sleep. (Why let sleep come between you and the “high” that attaches to thoughts of your beloved?)

These are turbulent times, marked by ecstasy and fulfillment when loved is returned; but sadness and despair when it is not.

Intimacy

Love may also emerge as intimacy, marked by warmth, closeness and connectedness. Each partner wants to give and receive emotional support and share their innermost thoughts and experiences.

If the couple feels intimate, but lacks passion, the relationship is more of a liking/friendship sort than romantic love.

Commitment

Sometimes partners commit to stay together and maintain love and relationship through thick and thin. But this love is more compassionate than passionate.

When a couple is committed but lack passion and intimacy, their relationship may be stagnant, lacking the emotional involvement and attraction they once had. When nothing but duty keeps them together, this is “empty love.”

But in places where marriages are arranged a couple might start with nothing but commitment, yet over time become intimate or passionate, or both. So sometimes “empty love” can be the beginning rather than the end.

Consummate love: intimacy + passion + commitment

These different sorts of love may arise in various combinations. Romantic love can be full of passion and intimacy yet lack commitment. Companionate love can involve intimacy and commitment but lack passion. Or perhaps a couple experiences passion and commitment, yet still lack deep intimacy.

When all three pillars of love combine into the perfect blend of intimacy, passion, and commitment, “consummate love” arises in what many feel is the best of all worlds.

Few couples who have been together for a long time will experience consummate love every moment. Most often the feeling waxes and wanes. And most couples experience different forms of loving styles throughout long-term relationships.

It could also be that different styles of love are a better fit for different couples, depending upon where they are, and want to be, in life and love.

Regardless of where you are, couples are best matched when they desire similar levels of each sort of love.

Popular Posts on BroadBlogs
Women Want Emotionally Connected Sex. Why?
Pleasuring A Woman
Who Falls In Love Faster? Men or Women?

Are Men More Likely to Separate Love & Sex?

Men separate love and sex more than women, right?

Men do seem to be more interested in having sex without love. They are more likely to say “yes” when offered casual sex and they are more likely to suggest having sex partners outside of a relationship, perhaps threesomes, open marriage, or “swinging.”

In the last few months there’s been talk on the blogosphere about open marriage thanks to Newt Gingrich, as well as Dan Savage’s New York Times piece advocating open relationships. Some say it’s easier for gay men (like Savage) to make this particular fantasy a reality since men can more easily separate out sex and love.

Social psychologists Roy Baumeister and Brad Bushman say men are indeed more likely to separate out love and sex in that way. But it turns out that women are perfectly adept at separating the two, as well. Women just tend to do it in an entirely different way. They are more likely to enjoy love without sex. In fact, a couple of men who read my blog have complained about this very issue, insisting porn helps them cope with sexless marriages.

One national survey asked people whether they agreed with the statement “love and sex are two different things” and women were more likely to agree with this than men.

So it seems that men are more likely to accept sex without love whereas women are more likely to accept love without sex. Who knows how much the difference is based in biology versus culture (the latter certainly has some effect).

But most often both genders think love combined with sex is best.

Popular Posts on BroadBlogs
Women Want Casual Sex? Yes and No
Women Want Emotionally Connected Sex. Why?
One Out of Ten Women Get Depressed After Sex

David Beckham’s Sex Sells

This Super Bowl Sunday the tables turned — at least a little — as “sex sells” warped into the alluring form of David Beckham, who flaunted his buffed bod to promote his H&M bodywear.

As Mary Elizabeth Williams over at Salon described it:

He flexes his numerous tattooed muscles to the tune of “Please Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood,” glowers in an “I mean business here” way that’s remarkably persuasive, and uh, I forget what I was talking about.

See the ad here.

Does Beckham bring balance to the scales of objectification? From Ryan Reynolds to Ryan Gosling to Taylor Lautner men’s bodies are increasingly drooled over.

While we are seeing more sexy guys, the fact that it’s newsworthy says it’s a bit unusual.

But last November DETAILS’ tackled men’s rising fixation with their bodies. Their slide show traced the phenomenon from 1986 home gym informercials through Mark Wahlberg’s giant Times Square boxer briefs ad (that snarled traffic in ‘92) to the emergence of light beer and the “the slim silhouette.” By 2002 Us, In Touch, Star and OK! eagerly exposed men’s six-packs. In 2008 Beckham’s Armani briefs overtook giant billboards on Main Street. And Emma Stone could be heard shrieking, “Seriously?! It’s like you’re Photoshopped!” as she gaped at Ryan Gosling’s rippled abs in Crazy, Stupid, Love.

So is this a turn for the good?

I don’t think it’s a problem to see some sexy men and women in ads. The problem comes when this is the main way people (okay, women, in reality) are portrayed.

And when ALL we see is sexy women, even women start to see females as “the sexy ones.” What are we supposed to look at? It’s hot to see some sizzle emerge in a male form.

And so long as men continue to be portrayed in plenty of other ways Beckham, et al., will hardly transform men-at-large into sex objects.

On the other hand, men are becoming more body-conscious and young men are increasingly falling victim to anorexia and exercise addiction, while cosmetic surgery has increased 88% among men between 1997 and 2011.

Some had hoped that if men were objectified they wouldn’t like it and would stop objectifying us. Instead, men and women now both obediently follow body “perfecting” dictates.

But then, it’s not men so much as marketers, male and female, who know that 1) pretty bodies draw attention, even when they have nothing to do with the thing being sold and 2) inciting insecurity moves a lot of product as we spend endless sums hoping to embody a phantom perfection.

Popular Posts on BroadBlogs
Man as Object: Reversing the Gaze
Men, Women React to Male/Female Nudity
How to Look Like a Victoria’s Secret Angel

Must Sexual Orientation be Biological?

Cynthia Nixon of Sex and the City fame recently announced that she chose to be gay. And she caught hell.

I gave a speech recently, an empowerment speech to a gay audience, and it included the line ‘I’ve been straight and I’ve been gay, and gay is better.’ And they tried to get me to change it, because they said it implies that homosexuality can be a choice. And for me, it is a choice. I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me.

Some critics insist she is a biologically-based bisexual.

Others have come to her defense. Gay New York Times columnist, Frank Bruni, insists, “She’s entitled to her own truth and manner of expressing it.”

His readers defend her, too:

I am L.A.M or lesbian after marriage. It does not matter that I was “born” this way or not. I just know that I am intensely in love with my wife of almost ten years… I feel like my sexuality has been fluid my whole life. Being identified as bisexual does not feel like the correct label nor does lesbian.

There may be a continuum with some feeling more straight or more gay, but not everyone understands their experience that way.

Evidence suggests that our orientation is biologically-based, as with fruit flies’ master sex gene. Among humans, genetic males who are raised as females almost always prefer females. Males with gay uncles are more likely to be gay. Men with lots of older brothers are also more likely to be gay (this may be tied to womb chemistry).

But there are unsolved questions. So why hitch your wagon to a moving target, Bruni asks.

When a man is gay, his adoptive brother is gay only 11% of the time. His twin brother is gay 22% of the time. But 52% of identical twin brothers are both gay. A follow-up study found only 20% to be gay. What about the remainder? Perhaps the environment has effects at the epigenetic level. Or are there social effects? Or is there other biological evidence we have not yet seen?

Also, the hypothalamus of straight men becomes active when sniffing an estrogen derivative, and the hypothalamus of gay men and straight women become active when sniffing a testosterone derivative. But lesbians’ brains do not consistently activate only in response to estrogen.

In fact, women seem to be more “fluid.” Straight men are strongly aroused by women and gay men are strongly aroused by men, but lesbians have relatively weaker arousal for females, and straight women have no preference at all, says Northwestern University psychologist, John Michael Bailey.

Biology is not a sure-fire shield against bigotry, anyway. As Bruni points out, some Christians might want to bio-engineer heterosexuality. And since Christianity is often about resisting desires, homosexuality could be seen as “their test,” as I’ve heard some put it. The logic goes like this: “We hetero’s must control our lust for anyone but our spouse. Gays must control their lust for ANYONE.” The lack of fairness doesn’t seem to matter.

But shouldn’t consenting adults be able to love who they love? Maybe we shouldn’t worry about the bigots.

When it comes to morality I ask, “Who is harmed?” and not “What’s traditionally been renounced?”

Homophobia hurts. Being gay doesn’t.

How do you act in the world? How much do you love?

Seasons of Love

Five hundred twenty-five thousand
Six hundred minutes
How do you measure, measure a year?

In truths that she learned,
Or in times that he cried.
In bridges he burned,
Or the way that she died.
Measure, measure your life in love.

Excerpted lyrics from the musical, Rent (see the video)

Related Posts on BroadBlogs
Gay Marriage Protects Marriage
Gay Marriage Helps Families
Christians for Gay Rights

Does Porn Objectify? Experts Disagree

tumblr_m70k61SGzh1qgadmfWhen men view porn do they see women as mindless objects? Psychologist, Kurt Gray and his colleagues wanted to know.

Humans have needs, goals, emotions, the ability to act, and hopes and dreams for the future. Mere objects don’t.

So the researchers showed men pictures of women in various states of dress and undress and asked how much “agency” they had, meaning self control and the ability to plan and act. They also asked about their ability to feel fear, desire and pleasure.

The study focused on these two areas because research on the mind shows that that’s how we categorize humans.

Turns out, the more skin women reveal, the less they seem agentic, but the more they are thought to feel.

Men seem to see nude women as a completely different sort of human from themselves. Naked women are “feeling” but not “thinking.” More “animalized” in nature. Interesting that sexualized women have been portrayed as bunnies, pets, cougars and sex kittens.

The researchers conclude that women are not mere objects, after all.

Yet “objectification” isn’t always understood as “unthinking and unfeeling.” It often means seeing people — usually women — as one-dimensional beings that are ALL about sex. If a man is getting off on a woman’s pain or pleasure, that’s a part of the porn experience. He may be drawn to her pain, and at the same time not care that she wants it to stop. So long as he is aroused, that’s all that matters. Regardless, sex objects exist to serve the desires of others.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines objectification as: treating someone as lacking agency, autonomy and self-determination, and as a tool for the objectifier’s purposes; treating a person as something that is owned and whose experiences and feelings needn’t be taken into account.

Even men who use porn a lot frequently describe it as objectifying women. Fortunately, many can still make a distinction between objectified porn stars and the multi-dimensional women in their lives. And as the researchers point out, it’s fine to be all about sex and feeling if you’re in bed with your lover. Just not when that’s ALL women are about ALL the time. But some women complain that when they’re trying to make love they feel more like objects that are just being used. That’s another symptom of the problem.

As Scientific American concludes, “There is, it turns out, more than one kind of ‘objectification.’”

Popular Posts on BroadBlogs
Does Sexual Objectification Lead to Bad Sex?
Sex Objects Who Don’t Enjoy Sex
Anything Good About Being A Sex Object?

Should Men Play Hard To Get?

Who are women most likely to find attractive right at the beginning of a relationship?

  1. men who strongly like them
  2. men who may like them
  3. men who show disinterest in them

On the one hand, plenty of psychological research says we tend to like people about as much as they like us. But what if we don’t know whether someone likes us or not? How does uncertainty affect things?

Psychologists at the University of Virginia and Harvard wanted to know. So Erin Whitchurch, Timothy Wilson and Daniel Gilbert set up an experiment. They told 47 women college students that they wanted to see if Facebook could work as an online dating site. Each was shown (fake) profiles of four “likeable, attractive” men.

Some were told, “These men liked you the most.” Others were told that the men had rated them “average.” A third group was left wondering as researchers explained that the men might either like them “the most” or “an average” amount.

Finding: The women were attracted to the men who found them attractive, just as prior research predicted. But they were most attracted when they weren’t sure how much the men liked them.

Keep in mind that these uncertain women didn’t have to worry that the men found them unattractive. They knew the men thought they were either average or very attractive. When there is a possible negative outcome – being seen as unattractive or ridiculous — women turn off.

So why would women feel more attracted with ambiguity than when attraction is strong?

A couple of things may be happening. When we respond strongly to positive experiences but then adapt, we get used to it. But when we are uncertain we spend more time thinking and trying to understand. So we never adapt.

But also, when we spend a lot of time thinking about someone we figure we must like them a lot.

But consider that this study only applies to the earliest stage of online dating. And the researchers looked only at women. Men have been found to be most attracted to women who are interested in them and not other guys. They are less attracted to women who are either “hard to get” (not interested in anyone) or women who are “easy to get” (they’re happy to date several men).

And as Psychologist, Adoree Durayappah points out:

(These) participants did not meet the men in person, and this was at the start of a relationship. Thus, we are uncertain if women keeping men guessing about their interest increases attraction or if keeping one’s partner guessing as the relationship develops would be advised. My personal hunch is that keeping one’s partner guessing about one’s interest during a growing relationship probably isn’t the best strategy for building a close connection.

Makes sense to me.

And if you don’t want to play games, be yourself and find someone who doesn’t want to play games either.

Popular Posts on BroadBlogs
Pleasuring A Woman
Why Hasn’t Open Marriage Caught On?
Women Want Emotionally Connected Sex. Why?

Anorexia: Physically and Spiritually Dying

I wouldn’t sit with daddy when he was alone in the hospital because I needed to go jogging; I told Derek not to visit me because I couldn’t throw up when he was there; I almost failed my comprehensive exams because I was so hungry; I spent my year at Oxford with my head in the toilet bowl; I wouldn’t eat the dinner my friends cooked me for my 19th birthday because I knew they had used oil in the recipe; I told my family not to come to my college graduation because I didn’t want to miss a day at the gym or have to eat a restaurant meal.

I would swear I did not miss the world outside. Lost within myself, I almost died.

During her recovery from anorexia, Abra Fortune Chernik filled three and a half Mead marble notebooks – five years’ worth of reflection on how her eating disorder had tangled her life and thwarted her relationships. You can read more on her struggle in “The Body Politic.”

I had always known that anorexia diminished women physically, and too often led to their deaths. But I hadn’t stopped to realize that the disease shrank them socially, emotionally, and mentally, too – leaving their world revolving solely around their bodies and their food – or the lack thereof.

I hadn’t realized that anorexia meant both a physical and spiritual ridding of the self. And yet it surely does.

Abra continued:

As my body shrank, so did my world. I starved away my power and vision, my energy and inclinations. Obsessed with dieting, I allowed relationships, passions, and identity to wither.

The name of her piece, “The Body Politic,” tells us that anorexia is not just about Abra’s own struggle, but the struggle of women who live in a world that seems to applaud their constriction, and perhaps even their disappearance.

A push toward constricting women, or “disappearing them”? In an earlier piece I talked of political pressures to deny women life-saving vaccines, cancer screenings, tests for H.I.V., emergency abortions to save a woman’s life, and nutrition programs, along with decriminalizing domestic violence. Women’s control over their bodies is being increasingly constricted by attempts to limit access to contraception and the right to choose.

Applauding women who sufficiently shrink their bodies, minds and souls is perfectly consistent.

And perfectly deranged.

Popular Posts on BroadBlogs
500 Calories + Pregnancy Hormones = Perfect Body
What Abusers and “Pro-Family” Conservatives Have in Common
Doctors Let Woman Die to Protect Fetus