43 posts tagged “sex”

Here's a sample of quotes I found about sex while surfing the net. Enjoy!

Love your neighbor, but don't get caught.
-- Unknown

Sow your wild oats on Saturday night -- Then on Sunday pray for crop failure. --Unknown

When I'm good I'm very, very good but when I'm bad I'm better.
--Mae West

Happiness is watching the TV at your girlfriend's house during a power failure.
--Bob Hope

You know of course that the Tasmanians, who never committed adultery, are now extinct.
--Somerset Maugham

A nymphomaniac is a women as obsessed with sex as the average man.
--Mignon McLaughlin

I believe that sex is a beautiful thing between two people. Between five, it's fantastic.
--Woody Allen

"What's the three words you never want to hear while making love? Honey, I'm home."
--Ken Hammond

I am always looking for meaningful one night stands.
--Dudley Moore

It isn't premarital sex if you have no intention of
getting married.
--Matt Barry

Leaving sex to the clergy is like letting your dog
vacation at the taxidermist.
--Camille Paglia

A man needs a mistress just to break the monogamy.
-- Unknown

I believe that trust is more important that monogamy
-- Savage Garden

While monogamy may be a great thing for families, it clearly is not for intellectuals
--the inventor of the birth control pill

Chastity: the most unnatural of the sexual perversions.
--Aldous Huxley

I've been too fucking busy and vice versa.
--Dorothy Parker

She gave me a smile I could feel in my hip pocket.
--Raymond Chandler

Older women are best because they always think they may be doing it for the last time.
--Ian Fleming

It's not the men in my life that counts - it's the life in my men.
--Mae West

It doesn't matter what you do in the bedroom as long as you don't do it in the street and frighten the horses.
--Mrs Patrick Campbell

Love is not the dying moan of a distant violin - it's the triumphant twang of a bedspring.
--S. J. Perelman

Is sex dirty? Only if it's done right.
--Woody Allen

When authorities warn you of the sinfulness of sex, there is an important lesson to be learned. Do not have sex with the authorities.
--Matt Groening

I don't see why I have to make one man miserable when I can make so many men happy.
--Ellyn Mustard

Ducking for apples -- change one letter and it's the story of my life.
--Dorothy Parker

Sex between a man and a woman can be great, provided you get between the right man and the right woman.
--Woody Allen

How many husbands have I had? You mean, apart from my own?
--Zsa Zsa Gabor

It is an infantile superstition of the human spirit that virginity would be thought a virtue and not the barrier that separates ignorance from knowledge. --Voltaire

Sex on television can't hurt you unless you fall off.
--Unknown

Promiscuous, adj. Someone who gets more sex than you.
--Author unidentified

This morning while idly surfing the net, I read one woman's rant about the latest sexual brouhaha du jour; that of David Letterman being blackmailed over the many sexual dalliances he's had over the years with women he'd worked with.  In complete indignation, she ripped Letterman up one side and down the other.

She reviled him for his inability to be monogamous; that he'd been repeatedly unfaithful to his partner of 23 years.  Calling him a "creepy, perverted old man", she jeered at him for his apparent inability to "keep in in his pants".  And then she wrapped up with hand-wringing about the increasingly so-called "dying breed" of men who remain absolutely sexually faithful to their female partners who, unlike Letterman, in her opinion, were "upright, righteous, strong, moral men with integrity".

I won't take the time to address all her points here, because that isn't the main point of this post, save to say that infidelity wasn't something invented in the 1960s.   People have been struggling to adhere to monogamy ever since it was imposed on us by religion countless generations ago.

What mainly struck me as absurd and short sighted about her post was the fact that the Letterman "sextortion" news has followed directly on the heels of the latest news about Roman Polanski's arrest.

If she wanted to vent her spleen on a "creepy, perverted old man", then she need not have looked any further than Polanski, who drugged and forcibly raped a 13 year old kid, then evaded justice for over thirty years.  Polanski is the real deal when it comes to creepy, perverted old men and it's completely ludicrous to even attempt to put Letterman into the same category.

Unlike Polanski and his misguided defenders, (such as Whoopi Goldberg, who has said that Polanski did not commit "rape-rape", but "something else"), who have tried to minimize the seriousness of what he did,  Letterman has stepped up to the plate like a man and openly admitted the dalliances without trying to explain them away.  Unlike many other celebrity men who have been outed for adultery in recent years, was honest about his behavior. 

Letterman was also involved with adult women in consensual encounters; hardly the crime of the century that will lead to the end of civilization as we know it.  Polanski and his defenders, who somehow think he's special and not subject to the same laws as the rest of us, on the other hand, say something very sad about our society.

Thoughts?

Why do you love your body?
Sponsored by Body by Victoria® from Victoria's Secret.

Now, that's a loaded question.

I've heard it said that sex is all in the brain, but the body is the means by which the brain's sexual desire is fulfilled.  With my body, I've experienced years of sensual pleasure as well as given it to others in great measure.

Of course, there are other reasons, but this is the first that came to mind.

With all the recent outings of politicians engaged in extramarital sex, my favorite liberal news site, Alternet, has been doing a flurry of articles relating to this subject.   In a recent article, Relax: Adultery Is Not That Big Of a Deal by Samara O'Shea, she explores the idea:

Dennis Hatchett, a 29 year old minimum wage worker, has father 21 children by 11 different women.  The children range in age from 11 months to 11 years.

"I had four kids in the same year. Twice." Hatchett admitted.

According to the Huffington Post, Hatchett was in court last week, appearing on the docket 11 times in regards to 15 of the 21 children who he's not paid child support for on a timely basis.

Though the guy is a Darwinian success and is assured of a large number of descendants to carry one his genes, I couldn't help but wonder what the fuck was he thinking.  I do know, however, which head he was thinking with.

My comment to the Huffington Post article follows below:

Now, I can't blame the guy for wanting to get laid a lot with a wide variety of women. I've had a rather large number of lovers over the years, myself.

However, in 30+ years of being sexually active, I have only ONE child. I know what a condom is for and I'm not afraid to use them.

I raised the one child I had to adulthood, and wasn't interested, nor did I have the financial resources, to raise more. One was more than enough for me.

I'm wondering if this guy has chicken fat for brains by siring so many kids he can't afford to support.

In March, the New England Journal of Medicine released the findings of a random clinical trial study show that circumcision not only reduces the incidence of HIV infection in men, but also reduces transmission of herpes simplex virus Type 2 and the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV).

After analyzing the results of the study, done on 3000 Ugandan men, the researchers estimated that circumcised men had a 25 percent reduced risk of HSV-2 infection.  For the types of HPV. that cause genital cancer, it was found that the circumcised men had a 35 percent reduced risk of infection.  Both studies were controlled for various health and behavioral factors.

The authors of this study suggest the difference might be because of the retraction of an uncircumcised man's foreskin during intercourse exposes the penis to infection, and that the moist area under the foreskin may then provide a protected environment in which the viruses can flourish.

“The findings suggest that there are important lifetime health benefits to the procedure,” Dr Ronald H. Gray, a professor of reproductive epidemiology at Johns Hopkins and the senior author of the study, said. “I think it’s important that pediatricians consider the lifelong benefits that might accrue from circumcision when they are advising parents on whether the procedure should be performed in baby boys.”

In 2007, prompted by the results of other similar studies, a consortium of experts convened by the World Health Organization and UNAIDS (the United Nations' HIV program) announced that circumcision should indeed "be part of a comprehensive HIV prevention package."  A package which, of course, includes safer sex practices.

Also, a team of researchers from the CDC, Johns Hopkins, and the Baltimore health department examined the records of more than 1,000 African American males — all heterosexual — who tested positive for HIV at Maryland clinics. Uncircumcised men were 50 percent more likely to be infected.

An editorial published with the first study reported noted that U.S. circumcision rates were declining, and that they were lowest among black and Hispanic patients, groups with disproportionately high rates of HIV., herpes infection and cervical cancer.  Sixteen states also have eliminated Medicaid coverage for routine circumcision, which may exacerbate the problem among the poor.

Many American doctors in recent years had no longer been recommending routine infant circumcision, backed by anti-circumcision organizations, who claimed that it was merely a cosmetic procedure that caused unnecessary pain to infant boys, as circumcisions were done without anesthesia.  In light of recent findings, however, many of these same doctors are reconsidering their position.

According to Marvin L. Wang, co-director of newborn nurseries at Massachusetts General Hospital,says that since the 1990s, it's become routine in U.S. hospitals to anesthetize babies before the procedure and complications are now rare, about 3 in 1000 and are minor and treatable.

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, circumcised boys have a lower risk of urinary-tract infections and penile cancer, and a slightly lower risk of getting sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV.  Uncircumcised men are also subject to balanoposthitis (inflammation of the foreskin and glans), phimosis (a foreskin that's too tight to retract over the glans), and paraphimosis (a foreskin stuck in the retracted position).

After reading about all of this, I was glad yet again that I am circumcised and I'm confident I made the right decision for my son.  Even if the benefits of circumcision to prevent the problems mentioned above were only minuscule, it would have been worth it in my book.

Yet again, Alternet has giving me blogging fodder.  In the article in questions, Which Is Worse These Days: Being Called Fat or Whore by Charlotte Hilton Andersen, the author explores the idea:

In an interesting switch, food and sex have completely reversed their roles in society. And all within only a matter of two generations.

My response to the article follows below:

Negative Attitudes Toward Food and Sex Come From the Same Source

We must remember that our country's culture has a strong Calvinist streak running through it, starting with the Puritans.

In both the instances cited in this article, food and sex, what is being resisted is hedonism, which is a worldview which values pleasure for its own sake. Eating and having sex, are both naturally pleasurable activities. A sex hedonist is a libertine, while a food hedonist is a gourmand.

Naturally, both forms of hedonism offend the Calvinist mentality, as Calvinism is suspicious of anything that indicates that people are having too much of a good time, as such pursuits take away from focusing on God.

Though most people today who take a negative attitude against those who enjoy sex and/or food "too much" in their opinion, are generally not consciously aware of the Calvinist roots of their beliefs, such roots are so deeply embedded in our culture as to be sacred cows.

Thus, many of those who rail against "whores" and fat people get emotional about it and take on a moralistic tone and cast sex and food hedonists as bad people deserving of public scorn.

And this is precisely what makes such attitudes so hard to root out; they are so deeping woven into our cultural fabric that most people are unaware of the religious roots of it all.

It would be better if people realized that everyone in this life has their own burdens to bear and that no one is perfect or in a position to act as moral judges to others. Pleasure for its own sake isn't bad, but self-righteously meddling into the private lives of others is.

The guiding rule should be, "If it doesn't infringe on your right to do differently, then it's none of your business." Simple enough, I'd think.

While listening to talk radio for blogging fodder recently, I tuned to the Focus on the Family show. This organization is so diametrically opposed to my worldview, that I usually listen in stunned amazement, much in the same way one rubbernecks a trainwreck.

When I tuned in, they were interviewing this woman who made the assertion that if a couple was not ready to have children, then they shouldn't get married, either. She said that they should wait until they are ready for children or to call off the marriage altogether.

Where to begin?

For one thing, the vast majority of people, even Christians, do not wait until their wedding nights to first have sex, especially considering that most people don't get married until a decade and more beyond when they go through puberty. They need to wake up and acknowledge reality.

Secondly, there IS such a thing as birth control. And this applies to the few that wait until marriage to have sex as well. A woman who waits until her wedding night can get herself on the pill a month or two before her wedding day, so there's no excuse for getting pregnant before you are ready. Similarly, men can use condoms.

Married or single, there's no reason for anyone to have children before they are ready.

Thirdly, many people don't want to have kids at all, but they do want to get married for whatever reason. To say that people should not get married until they're ready to have children is to say that marriage and, by extension, sex is only for the purposes of procreation.

Conversely, there are also people who want kids, but don't want to be married.

Focus on the Family has other similar, bizarre ideas about marriage and sex on their website. For instance, one article says it's a good idea to get married just so that you can have sex:

A few weeks ago, I was watching TV in a search for new shows to follow. One night, I tuned into "Bones", which I've seen a few more times since. This is a medical/crime show that features a forensic anthropologist who works with an FBI agent in identifying murder victims whose bodies are in sufficiently poor condition as to be hard to identify by ordinary means.

Unlike similar shows in years past, very little is left to the imagination. I've seen the show less than a handful of times, but I've seen several graphic and grisly scenes of death. In one episode, a woman is killed when the minivan she is driving explodes from a planted bomb. When the two main characters arrive at the crime scene, the viewer sees a close-up scene of blackened hands attached to charred, jagged forearm bones, still holding the wheel. There is another scene at the lab where the title character cuts the victim's blackened finger off, then holds it up, before immersing it in a solution that will make it possible to get a fingerprint from the finger. In another episode, there is a scene where a child discovers a decomposing body, complete with a closeup of worms and other insects crawling out of the mouth and empty eye-sockets of the victim. I have no problem with the realism, and this is a show I'll likely keep watching, and I might even read the books it's based on as well.

The show comes on at 8 pm on Tuesday nights in my viewing area and after seeing several grisly scenes like those mentioned above, I thought that a lot of kids must be watching this show, considering what time it comes on. And while teens and adults should have no problem with the graphic nature of some of the scenes, I knew that these scenes would likely inspire nightmares for pre-teen children watching.

And I wondered where were all the fundamentalist censorship advocates who are so keen on protecting the innocence of children? These people, who raised so much hell over the brief appearance of Janet Jackson's nipple at the 2004 Superbowl and anything more sexual than a peck on the cheek, are strangely silent when it comes to shows with explicitly grisly or violent scenes.

Do fundamentalist censorship advocates really think that the sight of a bare nipple, a naked breast, or a naked couple in bed where the covers aren't pulled up tight to the armpits will cause children psychological harm, but seeing graphic violence and grisly scenes of burned, mangled, and/or decomposing bodies of people who died violent deaths will not?

I think they've got it ass backwards. As I said above, it's quite likely that young children seeing the more grisly scenes on "Bones" and other similar shows and movies will have nightmares -- but I'm absolutely certain that no kid would ever have a nightmare after seeing a naked boob.

My beef isn't with shows like "Bones" or the networks, other than recommending that such shows be shown later in the evening when fewer young children will be up to view them.

Rather, my ire is directed at the hypocrisy of censorship advocates with their misguided focus on what is most inappropriate for children to watch.

Thoughts?

In a recent Alternet article, Are Male Fantasies of "Girl-on-Girl" Action Messing with Women's Sexuality? by Simcha, the author explores the dilemma of differing sexual fantasies and fetishes among couples and the difficulties of resolving such differences.

My comment follows below

The Author Illustrated One of The Weaknesses of Monogamy 

In monogamous relationships, a person's only partner is expected to fulfill all of their sexual needs. This is fine and dandy when both have the same fantasies or lack thereof, the same level of sex drive, and so on.

But, as is frequently the case, couples have mismatched libidos and mismatched fantasies.

And whatever solution any individual couple comes up with will leave one of the partners unsatisfied. Either one partner, usually the woman, will end up doing things she feels uncomfortable with to please her partner, or one partner, usually the man, will have to make do with repressing his fantasies and be satisfied with what he considers a truncated sex life, in order to please his partner. Both solutions suck.

Being non-monogamous, fulfilling my sexual needs isn't completely invested in a single partner, thus I would never expect any one partner to do anything she feels the slightest bit uncomfortable with. Nor do I have to go around frustrated with half a sex life, because I'm free to seek out other partners who are interested in doing things another partner may not, and vice versa. This, in turn, takes the pressure off, and I'm free to enjoy each partner for what she feels comfortable with, and vice versa.

In regards to girl-on-girl stuff, that doesn't do a thing for me. I enjoy engaging in threesomes, both FMF and MFM, but in both instances, I prefer that the two of the same sex concentrate on interacting with the one person of the opposite sex, either alternately or simultaneously, and not with one another, but your mileage may vary.