Notes from ISSWSH, and America’s Fear of Pleasure

I was in San Diego this weekend speaking at the annual conference of ISSWSH—the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health. There were over 300 people there, about half medical professionals and half mental health professionals. Nice folks.

I spoke on how professionals’ ambivalence about pleasure colludes with patients’ ambivalence about pleasure, and it was well-received.

I talked about how people express their discomfort with pleasure: for example,
• Assuming intercourse is the gold standard of sex;
• Believing desire is driven by 1) love and 2) the wish for intimacy;
• Dividing the body into sexual and non-sexual zones;
• Thinking that certain desires are embarrassing
• Concern that pleasure will get out of control

Then I talked about medical and mental health professionals’ discomfort with pleasure. You can see this, for example, in beliefs like intercourse is the gold standard of sex, and love drives sexual desire. You can also see it in professionals’ pathology-oriented categories and concerns, which often include:
· sex addiction
· porn addiction
· monogamy is the best kind of sexual relationship
· low desire for boring sex is a “dysfunction”

Of course, in a culture that isn’t comfortable with sex or pleasure, everyone is swimming in the same toxic, sex-negative river. Doctors and patients alike are exposed to fear-mongering, exaggerated claims of sexual danger, a religious climate that tries to steal people’s sexuality and give it to some “god.”

Adults’ sexual pleasure is supposedly dangerous because sooner or later, “the children” will pay for it. Somehow, adults’ healthy, consensual sexual pleasure WITH EACH OTHER (or alone) will create child molestation, teen pregnancy, sex trafficking, and unmarried “promiscuity.”

Just like censorship is more destructive than whatever material it represses, America’s fear of sexual pleasure is ultimately far more dangerous than anyone’s actual sexual behavior could possibly be.

How important should pleasure be? There’s no single answer that’s right for everyone. But a healthy society would allow—no, encourage—every individual to discover the meaning and importance of responsible sexual pleasure for himself or herself.

That would include the free flow of information, availability of sexual healthcare, the sexual training of professionals. In fact, it would mean that one of the qualifications for becoming a professional helper would be his or her comfort with pleasure.

Physical therapists should ask patients about masturbation. Oral surgeons should be asking patients about kissing. Psychologists should be asking patients about their sexual fantasies. And sex education should be about, well, sex—rather than abstaining from sex.

Anything less is simply not acceptable.

---

Technorati: sexual freedom, sexual repression, censorship, sexual intelligence, sexual censorship, sexual politics, war on sex, America’s war on sex, sexual rights, sex education, pornography

College Students and Anal Sex

This week is my annual winter college lecture tour with TV star Sue Johanson. Valentine’s Day is when schools often hold Safer Sex programs, so we’re lecturing to huge groups of college students in upstate New York, Green Bay, and Columbia, Missouri.

As always, there’s enormous interest in anal sex: how do you do it? How do you make it less painful? Is it dangerous? How do you talk someone into it?

I always answer this set of questions in two ways. First, I share information: the importance of lube, the use of breathing, going verrrrrrry slowly, and why condoms are important.

But there’s more to it than that. If it hurts so much, if it’s confusing or scary, why do so many kids do it? The answer obviously isn’t pleasure; too many people have to be talked into it, and too many people wonder how to do it. So only a few people pursue anal sex because it feels good.

Some people do it to avoid pregnancy—they get to be “technical virgins” despite having sex, which is especially important when you’re hammered about being “abstinent” year after year. Some people want it because anal sex has become a staple of porn. With the right lighting, acting, and editing, anal looks glamorous, easy, and tremendously (and unrealistically) satisfying.

Then there are the emotional payoffs. Anal sex is still taboo, and so it can feel nasty and sexy. Some people ask for or demand it as proof “that you love me.” It can have a subtle (or not-so-subtle) theme of power and control, of dominance and submission. It can be a way of experimenting when intercourse and oral sex seem, well, too normal. My clinical colleague Vena Blanchard suggests that anal is the “extreme sports” of sex, that it appeals to the testosterone-driven, almost-reckless ‘tude of young men.

Of course, it can feel intimate, a special bond that a couple save for or share with each other. But that would require that people treat it as special. They’d have to communicate, breathe together, experience the small pleasures of each moment.

Sadly, many of the students in our college audiences just aren’t that conscious during sex. They’re anxious about performance, they’re embarrassed about their bodies, they’re hoping they’re as entertaining as their partner’s previous partner. Some of them propose anal because they think they should. Others agree to it because they think they should.

There are things to enjoy about anal sex, but many men and women who pay attention and speak their minds say it’s not really worth the hassle. For a lot of people it’s more attractive as an idea than as a reality—like sex on the beach (ouch, sand!) or standing in the shower (stop—cramp in leg!).

The last thing I tell students about anal sex is that because of the complex logistics, you have to watch what you’re doing, and talk to each other while you’re doing it.

This makes a lot of them squirm or yell out “ew, gross!”. To which I reply, “Can’t talk while you’re having anal sex? Can’t do it with the lights on? Then you’re not ready to have anal sex.”

“Fortunately,” I add, “there are plenty of easier alternatives.”

---

Technorati: sexual freedom, sexual repression, censorship, sexual intelligence, sexual censorship, sexual politics, war on sex, America’s war on sex, sexual rights, sex education, pornography

Cops and Morality Police—World’s Best PR Agents

The long dark night for Abercrombie & Fitch is over. The obscenity charges have been dropped. Shoppers across America can resume fighting the war on terror.

Last week, new A/F photos went up in 363 U.S. stores. One showed three buff guys from behind, a little butt crack showing for your dining and dancing pleasure. The other showed some partial side-breast—no nipple, thank you. You’ll note that the pics show less skin than you see at the beach—or at most supermarkets.

When some mall customers in Virginia Beach, VA complained, police confiscated the photos and cited the manager for “obscenity.” Think about that—two cops decided that the photos should be taken down, and when they weren’t, they tore them down.

Less than a week later, the Deputy City Attorney had the charges dropped, saying the ads weren’t “technically” obscene. That’s like saying someone isn’t “technically” pregnant. It’s cop-speak for “we look like idiots and we disapprove of your stuff, but the darn legal system prevents us from running this town our way.”

I don’t buy A/F (I’m hardly their demographic) and rarely go to the mall, so I wouldn’t have seen the ads—until they were seized, of course. When the New York Times, Forbes, and the entire internet yakked about it, I became well-informed. And so did everyone else.

That’s the beauty of censorship—it actually expands the audience for the evil material.

Janet Jackson’s right nipple? Not everyone watches the Superbowl, you know, and most don’t watch the entire half-time show. After the nuclear-powered uproar, everyone watched the quickie unveiling on youtube, over and over.

NYPD Blue? That five-year-old episode had disappeared—until the FCC fined stations $1.4 million for showing it. Then I and everyone else had to see it. It’s a nice 2 seconds of a pretty lady’s butt.

The Parents Television Council is the most generous censor. They actually post clips of their “worst” show every week, and keep an archive. It’s a helpful guide—with samples—to enjoyable fare that they think is dangerous for us to see.

Of course, this is old news. When shows or books were “Banned in Boston,” turn-of-the-century audiences flocked to them. Some producers and publishers actually falsely claimed the honor. And the Vatican’s List of Prohibited Books has guided Catholics to racy and subversive literature for over 400 years.

Whether governmental, religious, or “morality” based, censorship promotes the work it finds dangerous. Unfortunately, it also damages innocent individuals, and our would-be adult society, along the way.

Won’t someone please ban my latest book?

---

Technorati: sexual freedom, sexual repression, censorship, sexual intelligence, sexual censorship, sexual politics, war on sex, America’s war on sex, sexual rights, sex education, pornography

Sexual Intelligence Awards™—Please Nominate!

As I’ve done every year since 2001, next month I’ll be announcing my annual Sexual Intelligence Awards. These honor individuals and organizations which challenge the sexual fear, unrealistic expectations, and government hypocrisy that undermine love, sex, and relationships—and political freedom—today.

Previous winners include:
* Henry Waxman, Congressman
* Catholics for a Free Choice
* Laura Kipnes, Author
* Bill Taverner, Sex Educator
* Ricci Levy, Administrator & Activist
* Frank Rich, Columnist
* Candye Kane, Red-Hot Musician

Please send your nomination, with a paragraph about him/her/it/them, to Klein AT SexEd Dot org. URLs of nominees are welcome but not mandatory. Nominations are due February 26.

---

Technorati: sexual freedom, sexual repression, censorship, sexual intelligence, sexual censorship, sexual politics, war on sex, America’s war on sex, sexual rights, sex education, pornography

American Family Association Mistrusts the Truth

Last week, I reported that the FCC fined 54 ABC TV stations $1.43 million for a five-year-old episode of NYPD Blue.

What would you think was being punished if you read this description on the website of the American Family Association?

“The episode, shown Feb. 25, 2003, included a scene featuring a woman and a young boy. In the scene, the woman disrobes in a bathroom.”

Wouldn’t you assume that the woman and boy were in the bathroom together, and for some degenerate, ratings-driven reason she stripped right in front of him?

Now read this (more accurate) description: “It’s a rear view of a woman taking off her robe in the bathroom to shower. A kid accidentally walks in on her, and they’re both embarrassed. She does her best to cover herself with her hands, and the kid retreats as fast as he can.”

Quite a difference, isn’t it? You can’t say the AFA is actually lying here. But I say that they’re being deliberately dishonest. Their obvious goals are to 1) rile their members who haven’t seen the show, and to 2) create great copy for politicians who haven’t seen the show who pander to conservative constituents who haven’t seen the show.

Since honesty is one of those “family values” AFA is always talking about, I think AFA’s dishonesty is simply disgusting. Worse, it shows that they don’t trust the “values” and “morals” of their constituents—AFA has to distort the truth to get their members to support this misuse of government power.

AFA’s lies about condoms and sex education are well-documented. Add TV content to their list of distortions.

Judge for yourself if the AFA is dishonest by viewing the clip here.

---

Technorati: sexual freedom, sexual repression, censorship, sexual intelligence, sexual censorship, sexual politics, war on sex, America’s war on sex, sexual rights, sex education, pornography