a case for wearing hotpants

One of my LDS friends once lamented to me that she had such a cute body when she was a teen, but she was obsessed with being “modest” and never wore anything that highlighted her curves or showed off her cellulite-free thighs. She said that after having several kids and gaining quite a bit of weight in the process, she felt sad that she no longer had a body that would look good in sexy clothes.

I thought of my friend today when I watched this video. Joy is indeed beautiful and her physical confidence is charming. I can’t believe that big women actually receive the slurs and insults that she relates in this clip.

California Mormon Bigotry (or Prop 22 Redux)

The following letter is to be read in California Sacrament Meetings on June 29th:

Dear Brethren and Sisters:

In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On November 4, 2008 Californians will vote on a propsed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters.

The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between and man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.

A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause.

We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.

Sincerely Yours,

The First Presidency

Law of Chastity Redux Again Part XXICDLLV…

I’ve been thinking about this Law of Chastity issue a lot, not just because of my art and how that fits into the church paradigm, but because, well, I was 34 when I got married (in the temple)—and I was a virgin.

You have to do a lot of thinking about it to get yourself in that sorry and sad state.

Prenuptially, I was ever so proud of my accomplishment (though really, all it took for Mr. Right to find me was one well-placed ultimatum to the Deity expressing my somewhat miffed state), but postnuptially…not so much.

Why?

Because I feel like I missed out on a whole lot

Want to save your marriage? Try Adultery.

Ever heard about the website The Ashley Madison Agency?  As their website boasts, it is “The World’s Premier Discreet Dating Service, with over 2,140,000 likeminded members.” 

 

“So what?” you say, “Internet dating is as old as the Internet, and it has even become socially acceptable.”

 

Ah, but this isn’t your ordinary dating agency, this is a dating service that specializes in married people looking for a little somethin’ somethin’ on the side.  Their tagline, “Life is Short. Have an Affair,” even comes with a little “TM” to indicate that it has been trademarked.  Wonderful.

Christian online sex shop

I thought this might be of interest to some of you. This online sex shop, Book 22, offers products that are specifically chosen to enhance intimacy in a Christian marriage. They say:

The twenty-second book of the Bible is Song of Solomon. We believe that God intended that such love, as spoken of in Song of Solomon, be a beautiful and normal part of marital life. Unfortunately this gift from God has been grossly distorted and abused by both ancient and modern people. Book22 is offering quality products to enhance the intimate life of God’s children. Our hope is that our products will serve as intimacy enhancers for your marriage.

Would you be more likely to buy items from a Christian sex shop than from a typical online vendor?

Bloggernacle roundup

Recent sex-related posts from the bloggernacle:

Some funny sex discussion at the Exponent retreat.
Erotic images and female desire from ancient Greece.
Devyn S. wishes he had a uterus.
I like sex, Ed.

That’s all I remember off the top of my head, but I’m sure I’m missing some. Have you seen other good (or bad) blog posts about sexuality in the bloggernacle recently?

Teh Pr0n. Let me show u it.

All about the ’nacle and General Conference are stories and opinions and exhortations re pr0n, both pro and con and undecided. Recently, Letters From A Broad had a lively discussion concerning the feminist take on pr0n, which ranges as wide a gamut as the opinions amongst the various factions of LDSdom. However varied the opinions, all seem to agree that the overriding purpose of pr0n is to arouse.

Nowhere, however, have I seen a discussion of genre romance, erotic fiction, or erotica as agents provocateur of arousal. This is most likely because I’m the new kid on the ’nacle block and have just missed it, but even in the lengthy discussions of sex, masturbation, pr0n, and various and sundry other sub-topics of sex, I’ve not seen it mentioned. ’Tis a puzzlement.

Amongst other things, I write genre romance with an edge. The edge isn’t sex; the edge is previously unexplored themes in genre romance like, oh, the juxtaposition of spirituality and sexuality while still heavy on external conflict. This earns no brownie points with agents and acquisitions editors. (The cry, “But we don’t know where to shelve it!” is still ringing in my head, even after a year.)

I don’t write erotic fiction, which is different from romance in that its sole purpose is to arouse yet has emotional content, but very little plot and more often than not, I’ll choose a story that promises a weighty external conflict. It is also different from erotica in that the sex in erotic fiction serves a purpose within the story but isn’t the story. I do occasionally write straight erotica in small doses, but, quite frankly, disemboweled sex (i.e., without an emotional connection) doesn’t really do anything for me. Kinda like looking at pictures of nekkid peoples doesn’t really turn me on although I’m a visual learner.

While my husband teases me about my pr0n, I don’t really know how to draw any lines between genre romance where the sexual content is anything from kiss-and-fade-to-black to take-a-cold-shower-graphic, erotic fiction, and erotica—because it’s all meant to arouse. It may arouse me more easily simply because I’m 40 and therefore have the libido of a 17-year-old boy, but with regard to romance and some erotic fiction (occasionally dubbed Romantica™), the aim is to arouse through the conduit of emotional connection and love.

Regardless my comments on Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight here and elsewhere, it’s an erotic tale. All the subtext is there, naturally, but without having to read in between any lines whatsoever, the scenes between Edward and Bella wherein he doesn’t kiss her, but sniffs at her neck, are hawt. It’s all in the execution. Eugene Woodbury’s upcoming novel, Angel Falling Softly had me catching my breath in a few places, too, though his sex scenes are simply elegant.

It did occur to me that perhaps the written word not otherwise slapped with the label “Penthouse Forum” is seen as literature, which is an art form. I mean, do you read a 350-plus-page novel for the sex? I think not. You read it for the story; it just takes too much work and a rather lot of brainpower to read one of these things and doing it for the sex is counterproductive. There is effort involved, the reader’s effort, the contract between author and reader—

—but it’s arousing and that’s one of its purposes.

So by that definition and within the context of the never-ending exhortations by Teh Brethren to avoid that which arouses the natural man, is it pr0n?

Discuss.

Oral Sex – or – “You Put Your Mouth Where?”

I gotta say, as an adolescent growing up, the idea of Oral Sex was pretty exciting. That said, I didn’t get it at first, and it took awhile for the concept to really jell. It was the term – “blow job” – that confused me. “What, she blows on it? Like a birthday candle? And that feels good?”

 

I was pretty sensitive down there, as most boys are. It didn’t take much for me to stand at attention. But the closest I could approximate to a blow job – i.e. standing in front of a fan or hair dryer – didn’t do much for me. “Maybe there’s more to it than this?” a young boy says with a puzzled look on his face, pants around his ankles, floor fan set to “High”.

 

(The other common term – “giving head” – was equally confusing… my literal mind could only picture a woman butting her head, like a ram or a bull, against a man’s crotch. Seemed like it could be painful, even dangerous.)

And now, to scare the sh** out of you

One in four New Yorkers has herpes. This includes 49% of black New Yorkers (!) and 36% of female New Yorkers.

Yikes.

Put a condom on it, boys and girls, unless you are absolutely positively 100% sure your partner is clean.  Or, play solitaire.

And this is a good time to admit:  The Mormon virgin-till-marriage route has its drawbacks, but it’s not without potential benefits too.

Give us this day our daily . . .

Have you seen this article (which is currently number one on the NYT top-10 list) yet? It discusses two couples who have taken a somewhat novel approach to dealing with relationship issues.

Let’s say you and your spouse haven’t had sex in so long that you can’t remember the last time you did. Not the day. Not the month. Maybe not even the season. Would you look for gratification elsewhere? Would you file for divorce? Or would you turn to your mate and say, “Honey, you know, I’ve been thinking. Why don’t we do it for the next 365 days in a row?”

That’s more or less what happened to Charla and Brad Muller. And in another example of an erotic adventure supplanting married ennui, a second couple, Annie and Douglas Brown, embarked on a similar, if abbreviated journey: 101 straight days of post-nuptial sex.

Both couples document their exploits in books published this month, the latest entries in what is almost a mini-genre of books offering advice about the “sex-starved marriage.”

The couples in the article seem to have gotten a sort of boost from a commitment toward every-day sex. And why not? Sex can be a good way for a couple to re-connect, to affirm their commitment for each other, and frankly, to have fun. A commitment to daily sex is a commitment to couple-building, in an important way (and has a built-in reward system!).

Would the same approach work on a broader level? A Florida church was in the news recently for its own, religion-oriented adaptation of exactly this approach: The pastor challenged married members of the congregation to have sex every day for the next 30 days. (That’s different than the usual “do your home teaching” exhortations I usually hear in church!) It sounds quite promising. The brochure and blog on the church’s website discuss the many potential benefits of the 30-day challenge. I wonder if my stake will ever do something like this.

—

Is daily sex potentially a good thing? Do the benefits — connection, affirmation, affection — outweigh the potential drawbacks? Would it ever get blase and boring?

And how different would church be if leaders stood at the pulpit and challenged members to have sex every day? If instead of (or in addition to) home teaching and tithing, the bishop or EQP asked if you were getting it on daily? (Um, would that be an incentive, or would it just be weird?) If the visiting teachers offered tips and advice on favorite sex toys?

Or maybe even offered to join in every once in a while . . .