Quiz: Anal Sex

Quiz: Oral Sex

Time for a Cuddle Party?

They seem to be all the rage these days. One news story notes:

It’s a Cuddle Party, and it’s exactly what it sounds like. Adults getting together to cuddle. To sprawl on the floor and spoon in ratty sweats. To pile on one another like pound puppies. To satiate their “skin hunger.”

Another story explains:

Tsk, tsk if you thought Cuddle Parties were about sex. They’re painstakingly platonic. They’re all about making touch A-OK, promoting intimacy in a world increasingly lived online, alone together. They’re about “a structured, safe workshop on boundaries, communication, intimacy and affection.” . . .

A Cuddle Party may look like a pajama party for grown-ups. It’s fun but there are rules. The number one rule, pajamas stay on the whole time. This is a non-sexual event. There’s snuggling, nuzzling and even spooning. But not everyone’s ready for a group hug right away since you may not know everyone. So to get comfortable there are a few steps to start with.

The first step, whether you’re with a partner or by yourself, is to sit and chat in a welcome circle. You hear the rules which include asking permission and getting a verbal yes before you touch anybody. And if everyone agrees to all of the rules, the cuddling begins.

The concept was created (or at least, named) four years ago. They’ve been increasing in popularity ever since — now they’re happening in cities all over the country. They’ve even made it onto CSI.

And it really is a fascinating and poignant commentary on modern culture that adults feel the need to formally get together with strangers just to feel human touch.

What role does non-sexual touch and affection play in your own life? What has your experience or observation been about touch and intimacy among Mormons? I don’t think that Mormons touch much, as a general rule. Is that what you’ve seen, too? Do you ever feel touch-deprived, in the community? And how do you separate out non-sexual from sexual touch, in your own life?

And really, do we need to start holding ward cuddle parties?

Guest post: “Do it for England”

This is a guest post from a reader named Sartre

Mormons come from a conflicted subculture when it comes to sex. Young women, and to a lesser extent, young men, are counseled, with good reason, to abstain, but in a less than positive fashion, “no no no.” Yet pre-Manisfesto, Mormons enjoyed anything but a Victorian mindset toward sex. So we’re a paradox. We come from a culture of polygamists, yet now form the most modern day Victorians.

What does that mean? It might be we do a good job keeping marriage counselors busy with our messed up relationships, but that’s not the point. What’s the philosophy of sex according real life Mormons?

Do Mormon men get what it takes to romance our women? Are our women interested enough in that aspect of relationships to make it hot and wild? Or do our women prefer the Victorian attitude, “yes love making sucks, but do it for England, darling”?

Bodies in the Media

In an article on sex in the media (”Let Our Voices Be Heard”, Ensign, Nov 2003, 16-18), Elder M. Russell Ballard tells us that according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, “the percentage of television prime-time shows with sexual content jumped from 67% in 1998 to 75% in the year 2000. Media with this kind of content has numerous negative effects. It fosters a callous attitude toward women, who are often portrayed as objects of abuse and not as precious daughters of God who are essential to His eternal plan. The long-cherished values of abstinence from intimate relationships before marriage and complete fidelity between husband and wife after marriage are denigrated and derided.”

I agree with Elder Ballard’s concerns, especially regarding any type of media that portrays women as objects of abuse. I think media can take sexuality way to far, either completely degrading it or showing such a perfect, romantic, fairly quick yet mutually pleasing union between two adults that less-sexually-experienced viewers may come away with an unrealistic expectation of sex.

However, I also feel there are certain benefits in my own life and in other women’s lives from appropriate media portrayal of both bodies (I’m thinking of what I consider to be artistic and non-pornographic pieces that show the beauty of the human body) and sexuality.

As a teenager turning into a woman, I was so shielded from any type of nudity (or even immodesty) that it was often difficult to know what a “normal” body looked like. I remember being in France during a vacation with my mom and seeing a billboard (I think it was for the Gap clothing store) that showed a topless woman. It was so natural and organic that it didn’t strike me as pornographic at all. Her breasts were quite small, and my first thought upon seeing it was “Oh! That’s GREAT! Mine ARE normal!!” It was very reassuring for me to be able to see another woman and be comfortable that what had happened to my body was routine and that even though I was pretty small in the chest department, that size could still be portrayed as beautiful.

I also don’t know how in the world I would have enjoyed my first sexual encounters if I hadn’t caught a few glimpses of visually explicit sex scenes in movies and on TV. I certainly didn’t have the kind of sex education in Utah public schools that would have helped me understand how it all works. The four minute explanation my mom provided on the “birds and the bees” when I was about seven years old wasn’t enough to help a mature young woman prepare for her own sex life. When it came to that first night, media had been the most helpful, educational, and open teacher I had on what was biologically supposed to happen and how it could be enjoyable for me, too!

All in all, I think tasteful sex in the media has had a positive effect on me. What about you? Has the media had any distinctly negative or positive effects on your sex life? Has it helped or hindered your acceptance of and comfort with your own body?

Mr. Deity on masturbation

“It’s like living in front of the Bellagio…”

What’s in your nightstand drawer?

I think it’s important to have a well-stocked nightstand that includes a variety of items to enhance one’s sexual experience. Some of the items that I like to keep on hand are:

• lube: my current favorite is a silicone-based lubricant called “Swiss Navy.” There’s also KY, warming gel, and edible/flavored lube
• vibrator
• massage oil and lotion in favorite scents
• a variety of condoms–with & without spermicide, some novelty colors and flavors

Some items that I keep nearby, though not in the drawer:

• candles and matches
• an iPod dock for some iTunes playlists that are especially compiled just for our intimate time
• extra pillows
• a towel (though I think I’m going to adopt the red washcloth idea soon)
• lingerie
• sometimes our laptops are at hand so we can watch a bit of a movie together or do some internet searching on a particular topic

Earlier in our married years we had some sex reference books next to our bed. We’ve also had some items that haven’t remained a part of our nightstand cache. For example, handcuffs I found way too creepy [fyi, Sport Sheets products are a far safer, more comfy alternative to handcuffs]. We’ve had various edible concoctions and kama sutra potions that, while interesting for their novelty value, haven’t remained mainstays for us.

I’m curious…what’s in your nightstand drawer?

On the origin of nipples

Did you ever see a kid with extra (supernumary) nipples in gym class? I did. In fact, my sister has supernumary nipples. We humans have genes that encode an entire row of nipples (like a dog or a cat). However, these genes are normally suppressed in humans, although they’re still in our DNA. Extra nipples tend to run in families, and occasionally a person has a spontaneous mutation that causes one of these nipples to arise from our evolutionary past, which brings me to my next question:

Why do men have nipples? Nipples arose quite recently (evolutionarily speaking), and in some mammalian species, males actually nurse their young. Nipples first appear at around day 30 of embryonic development, before a fetus is visibly male or female. Male nipples are vestigial (they usually don’t produce milk). However, both men and women are endowed with all the necessary machinery to nurse a baby. If you give a man the right hormones, he can nurse too.

Occasionally a human being is born with testicles and a vagina–with an X and a Y chromosome, but no uterus or ovaries. These “women” have androgen insensitivity. If you have a mutation that prevents a response to testosterone, you become a woman by default, even with testicles. These women are entirely capable of nursing children.

Women who have never had children can also induce lactation if they mechanically manipulate their nipples enough. I’ve even seen a male or two who managed this trick.

So why did God give men nipples? I really have no idea. I welcome any thoughts. Does it have something to do with sex? Maybe it has more to do with garment markings.

Like Yin and Yang

My spouse and I complement each other in many ways. Many of our strengths offset each others’ weaknesses. But the one issue that continues to be a problem is that he’s a morning person and I’m a night owl. Which means that if we have sex in the morning, I’m not as into it, or if it’s at night, he’s pretty exhausted. Occasionally we remedy this by a lunchtime tryst, but those opportunities tend to be rare.

Tis the Season