Embracing female sexuality (from touchyourself.org)

A post from Sex Drive Daily deals with “CAKE parties” which are focused on women expressing their sexuality. Apparently this expression often comes in forms similar to expressions of male sexuality. Shocking, eh?

What this means is you get women gyrating about, on stages and on dance floors, in bikinis and lingerie and perhaps even less. Make-out sessions. Amateur male dancers.And some women are upset about this, because to them it looks like women objectifying themselves for the pleasure of men. Or women adopting a masculine idea of sexuality because of our pornified culture. Or that women should be the guardians of lovemaking as a sacred connection between two committed people and that it should never be “just sex” or “just fucking” or “just pleasure” or whatever else the objectors object to.

As I wrote in the comments there, I have to wonder if the objection may be a symptom of our tendency to divide ourselves along lines of gender. If gender is the biggest defining characteristic in sexuality, then someone who identifies as female may see her sexuality and her comfort zone within sexuality as being “female sexuality,” making everything outside her comfort zone a form of exploitation.

Just because it’s women objecting, is this any different from male-dominated church restrictions on sexuality?

These parties quite honestly sound amazing. I’ll admit I’d love to attend, both for my own gratification and just to be in the presence of that many women taking ownership of their own sexualities.

Speaking of ownership, take a look at this graphic response to “You have such a pretty face.” Quite beautiful!

Sex Workers Union (from touchyourself.org)

The prostitutes of Calcutta are making huge strides forward!

“I strongly believe that for a program to succeed, the subjects have to adopt its goals as their own,” he explains. They have: the sex workers run the HIV program themselves. Jana persuaded them to form a growing collective that now includes 60,000 members pledged to condom use. It offers bank loans, schooling for children, literacy training for adults, reproductive health care and cheap condoms–and has virtually eliminated trafficking of women in the locale. Best of all, the project has kept the HIV prevalence rate among prostitutes in Sonagachi down to 5 percent, whereas in the brothels of Mumbai (Bombay) it is around 60. Other sexually transmitted diseases are down to 1 percent.

Wow. There’s so much more than that in the article as well. Please go and read it.

Scientific American link

400% (from touchyourself.org)

Mindhacks is a fascinating blog, even if half of what it posted there is over my head.

news broke last week of a study claiming that orgasm is “400% better” with a partner than with masturbation, based on measures of the neurohormone prolactin.

While the article goes on to discuss some of the critiques of this experiment, I can just say from experience that this just isn’t right. They’re different, sure, but solo orgasms can feel better than partnered ones and vice versa.

It seems like everyone wants to treat masturbation as a weak substitute for sex and not the self-loving healthy, wonderful act that it is. Your body and your sexuality are yours. Explore them!

Intimacy in a bottle (from touchyourself.org)

Is anyone else highly annoyed by the new Elexa line of products from Trojan? They’re trying to market sex products to women so instead of lube they have “Intimacy gel” and instead of wipes they have “freshening cloths.”

When you’re dry, you need lubrication, not intimacy. Any actual bodily fluids need to be wiped away (or rubbed in if you’re so inclined), not freshened. It just seems like a ridiculous way to reinforce the idea that women don’t want the physical aspect of sex.

In addition, this is another way to link sex with products. I’m not going to say that goods can’t improve sex. I’m a huge Astroglide fan, for example. And vibrators, porn, erotic books, lingerie… they’re all great too. And condoms, of course, are a necessary part of sex for most people. But these commercials feel more like blatant manipulation to me.

And finally this is the marketing of an emotional experience. You cannot bottle intimacy! Yes, lube can make an intimate experience more fun, but no matter how much of it you add, it’s not going to make the experience intimate. That depends on actual human interaction.

The products can make the physical aspect of sex better, but that’s not what the ads say. The ads are selling an emotional experience on which the product cannot deliver.

Quiver-Full and God's presence in sex (from touchyourself.org)

Metaphorge linked to an article on the “Quiver-Full” movement in which couples feel it is a divine mandate to have lots of children and thus don’t use any artificial contraception and “most refuse even to use natural family planning.” I’ll ignore the unfair references to Andrea Yates and just get right into the idea and ideals of being Quiver Full.

The article cites Psalm 127:3-4 as the source of the name:

“Lo, children are a heritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man, so are children of the youth. Happy is the man whose quiver is full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.”

Okay, cool. Children are a blessing. I can dig that. I can also look at the reasons why the culture that produced the Psalms would have placed high value on reproduction. It’s the ideas of God that come from this ultra-personal view of the Divine’s role in reproduction that bother me.

The article quotes one “Dawn Prince” as saying

“It comes down to the question of where do you believe babies come from? I have a hard time believing conception is just a biological act. I believe that God is at work in each and every conception that takes place.”

First off, by using the phrase “just a biological act” she’s already removed the sacred from the physical. If anything can be “just biological” then the belief in the omnipresence of divinity has been eschewed. This quote doesn’t actually say that anything is just biological (meaning divorced from the sacred), but it does state that the particular act of conception has a divine aspect and implies that other acts do not, leading me to believe that she doesn’t hold to omnipresence of God.

Now, if “God is at work in each and every conception,” then is God at work in EVERY act? I’d say yes, but not in the sense that God has each thing planned out and it all follows a Divine Plan, but that the sacred is the source of all life and thus runs through it all. In Mrs. Prince’s eyes, God specifically steps in and creates each child in the place and time He (I’m assuming a masculine view of God on Mrs. Stone’s part, and that may be mistaken) wants the child. If God is doing that, then by using birth control people are standing in the way of God’s Divine Plan!

Where the hell is faith in this scenario? Is your God so small that He can be thwarted by a layer of latex or a hormone pill? This strikes me as such a small view of the sacred, making it something that can be pushed around. God is at work in any act of love. No contraceptive can stop that.