The Daily Fail and Faking It

Oh dear, according to the Daily Mail men (remember you're all straight) like to look at women's faces during sex, not because it's wonderfully romantic or increases communication and intimacy but because they're trying to work out whether we're faking our orgasms or not.

Let me help you all out here.  Here's how you can tell if your (female) partner is faking her orgasms: she always has one.  Even when it's just a quickie or she's had a bad day or is feeling a bit unwell.  The best way to tell she's not faking is if sometimes she says "ooh, not quite, here, try this".

Seriously, good sex = communication. If you don't have the guts to talk about it, should you really be doing it at all?

You are welcome.

Religion, sexuality, the Daily Mail and me

The Daily Fail is celebrating the jubilee by giving me an excuse to air a little rage.  Even for them this is funny.  It's called "'Promiscuity, divorce and separation are at epidemic proportions,’ warns bishop in Jubilee address".  So here's a little line-by-line for y'all:


"Promiscuity, separation and divorce are at 'epidemic' proportions, a senior Church of England bishop has warned as he called for Britain to use the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee as an opportunity to reflect and reassess values."

Yeah people woke up and smelt the secular coffee! Turns out there is no God, and therefore no reason to regard sex for pleasure as a bad thing, nor to persist with relationships after it has become apparent they're not working.

"The Rt Rev Richard Chartres, Bishop of London, writing in a Bible Society pamphlet about the origins of the word jubilee, said Britain was now an 'enormously different' society compared to 1952 - the year of the Queen’s accession to the throne - and in 'so many ways' a better place to live."

Yeah a much better place, for example all the jobs which used to be men-only are now open to women too, except the marine commandos and, what's that other one, oh yeah - being a fucking bishop like he is.

"But he said inequality had grown and material progress had been at the expense of communal life with relationships within families, communities and society 'more strained, more fragile' and more broken than people cared to recognise."

Monetary inequality may well have grown but equality for gay and lesbian people is now a legal standard across our society except, oh what's that one thing, oh marriage. And who is is who keeps fighting against gay and lesbian marriage?  Oh yeah - the homophobic churches. Bastards.

"'Literally millions of children grow up without knowing a stable, loving, secure family life - and that is not to count the hundreds of thousands more who don’t even make it out of the womb each year,' he said."

Yes your evil God does cause a lot of miscarriages doesn't he?  Perhaps it's time you stopped praying to him and started paying to have folic acid capsules and other scientifically-proven ways of reducing miscarriages provided to pregnant women?

"'Promiscuity, separation and divorce have reached epidemic proportions in our society.
'Perhaps, then, we shouldn’t be surprised that depression and the prescription of anti-depressants has reached a similarly epidemic level.'"

Yeah we're definitely not as happy a society as we were when we made small children climb chimneys to clean them and half the population had plague.  Or maybe we're a bit more open about mental health problems now that people who admit to them don't get burnt as witches quite so much by, oh who is it, your stupid fucking church!


"In his pamphlet, Dr Chartres said the Diamond Jubilee was not only a time to reflect on the Queen’s 'extraordinary' reign but also a chance to 'rebalance the scales' in society and focus on how we can 'reset' the situation."


Reset the situation?  Do you mean "roll back decades of progress" or do you mean "go back to the good old days when people actually believed in God and your job wasn't a pointless waste of time"?

"Dr Chartres said the Biblical meaning of the word jubilee was a reminder of the need to take the 'long view' and to take into account the environment for future generations. It should also mean an end to the 'crippling debt economy' and a move to living within our means, he added."

Seriously?  The bible is telling us to reduce our national debt?  Which verse is that?  I wonder what his view is on dropping the top rate of tax?  Is our holy mythical overlord a believer in the long discredited Laffer curve?

"Dr Chartres also called for action to tackle 'depressingly high' youth unemployment in Britain.
'The extent of youth unemployment is appalling. The waste of human talent is unsustainable morally and economically,' he said."

Yes I hate to see human beings whose time and effort is wasted in unproductive activity that contributes nothing to society.  I'm going to pray about that.


"We should not simply look to government for a solution but look to our communities for role models and mentors to encourage, challenge and enthuse those who are in danger of losing hope.'"

Yeah we need role models.  How about a guy who deliberately chooses to believe irrational unscientific lies and is rewarded for this with access to our political leadership?  That doesn't really fill me with hope.

"Dr Chartres praised the 'quiet dignity' of the Queen and the way she and her family had reached out to include newly established British communities."

Well yes the Queen has expressed her "quiet dignity" by not biting the hand that feeds her and nodding along with what "her" government does even when it's leaving people in crippling poverty.

"'We have changed profoundly as a country in the 60 years of the Queen’s reign. We have bade farewell to Empire abroad and moved into a new multicultural reality at home,' he said."

Also we invented the vajazzle.  I'm getting the crown jewels vajazzled onto my crown jewels.  What is the point here?


"'The demise of the old world and the arrival of the new has involved sometimes painful adjustments."

Sure thing.  Also quite a lot of really nice holidays though.

"'The quiet dignity of the Queen and the way in which she and her family have reached out to include newly established British communities has provided a focus for continuing but expanding national self-respect and so has assisted the peaceful transformation of our national identity.'"

No the identity of the nation has changed all on it's own, thanks to modern British people.  The Queen has never been at the vanguard of that, she's always been running along behind, trying to keep up with her overtly racist husband.

He added: 'Her Majesty enjoys widespread and profound popularity across the British people, and beyond.

Considering the massive PR machine she is promoted by, she's remarkably unpopular.

"'Not only is she quite simply the most famous public figure on earth but she is also the most respected.'"

Really? More respected than Nelson Mandela? The woman who was queen of South Africa as apartheid was brought in?  How ridiculous.

The truth is while Mandela spoke out about injustice and was prepared to suffer the gruelling consequences, the queen's "quiet dignity" is exactly what has allowed her to keep living a life of outlandish luxury and continues to allow pointless people like this idiot to leap on the bandwagon and use her to promote their own political agenda.  Like dishing out celestial advice on economic policy and criticising people who have and enjoy the healthy and joyous experience that is sex for pleasure!

Why thank you Daily Mail, so THAT'S how my body works?

The Daily Fail really has outdone itself today. First grab a handkerchief or something you can ram into your mouth if you don't want to annoy the neighbours with uproarious laughter. Now let me tell you : A MAN has written an article explaining about female orgasms. I know, I know, but don't worry, he knows exactly what he's talking about because he's checked with "science".

Perhaps most worryingly since most people only read the headline, it is titled:

"Put away the road map, lads: Scientists present new proof that women can climax through intercourse alone"

Gee I would have guessed (straight, male) Daily Mail readers were crap enough in bed already, PLEASE don't encourage them to not even bother working at it! And here's the first few lines:

"For decades it has been thought that the clitoris was the only key to a woman's sexual satisfaction."

Only men have ever thought this, and the kind of men who don't speak to women about these things. In other words strange men who are shit in bed.

"That meant men who wanted to satisfy their partners believed they must spend hours getting to know the little button-like organ, its location - and the kind of treatment which excited it."

Finding out what pleases your partner - what a chore, eh? Who are these people, and more importantly - who the hell is sleeping with them?

"But now research shows..."

Oh "research", great, that's going to save me hours of boring boring masturbation.

"...that not only can women climax through sexual intercourse alone,"

Really - sexual intercourse ALONE? No kissing, no petting, no getting in the mood. Just three, two, one, penetrate? Even if that were true, who would want to do it?

"but the resulting orgasm is wildly different to those reached by clitoral stimulation."

A "wildly different" orgasm, so why is it still called an "orgasm"? Sounds suspiciously like they might be talking about "a really nice feeling that isn't really an orgasm" or even "a feeling so unpleasant it's worth faking an orgasm just to get it to stop"?

"The new conclusions will chime with many who have found that there is more than one way to satisfy a woman in bed."

Yeah but will they chime with WOMEN? You know, cos it is sort of us having the orgasms here. I mean how weird to try and confirm your scientific research about female orgasm by corroborating it with a bunch of straight men.

Anyway I'm not going to line-by-line the whole thing cos it's infuriating.I was performing at a comedy night the other day though and one of the other acts, a guy, was talking about sex and said one thing he hates is talking during sex. I think thats pretty sad really. I mean I understand that a lot of us are a bit inhibited and it can be awkward, but really if you're not communicating what you want, it is pretty unlikely you'll be getting it.

And the attitude promoted by the Daily Mail that (1) all women want the same thing, (2) men are supposed to magically know what that is based on "science" and get on with it and (3) good news, that magical thing is actually just a quick bit of penetration and then some snoring is not really helping anyone.

Worse still half way through the article it reveals "female orgasm happens in the brain" as if a dismembered penis could have an orgasm on it's own. And then insists women can have them just by thinking about them. "Darling, I'm sorry, this really isn't doing it for me", "Maybe you're thinking about it wrong?". Sounds a bit like a manifesto for guys who are rubbish in bed.

To be honest I hate expressions like "G-spot" and the notion of different kinds of orgasms. It gives the impression that women's bodies are made of mystic magic buttons and zones. But in fact the definition of a "G-spot" is just an area thats more sensitive than other areas. No-one ever refers to the back of the leg as a magical "knee-spot". There might be some broad generalisations to be made but every woman, and indeed every person is different. And far from being a tick-box list of different types of orgasm to be achieved, finding out what the other person likes IS the fun bit.

Sexual imbalance

Dear BBC, I know it can be hard to tell what is and isn't news. Let me help. This isn't. It's a video story by a woman and has the title "Why I had sex with 40 men I met online". Reading the details she met these men over a period of around 7 or 8 years. That's about 5 men per year, less than one every two months. Lots of women have that many sexual partners. And meeting them online doesn't make it any more or less of an issue, meeting people online is not really any different from meeting people at a party or in a bar. In fact if anything it gives you an opportunity to find out more about someone - reading through their profile and asking questions - before committing to meeting and it reduces the risk your judgement is impaired by alcohol or other drugs.*

If there is a (fairly small) story here it's that she started doing this when she was 15. The men she met at this time are legally rapists. Where is the documentary that tracks them down and asks them what the hell they were doing? Instead it asks why she did it - SHE didn't, SHE was too young to consent. THEY did it...

Also today on the BBC is this story: a documentary has been made about comedian Jeff Leach and the fact that he says he's had sex with 300 women. I've met Jeff once or twice on the comedy circuit but not really enough to have an opinion about his work (or to number among his bedpost notches). So how is it news for a man to have 300 partners but for a woman to have had just 40 partners?

The discrepancy is repeated in the middle of the article "It's said the average British man has had 13 sexual partners and women have had just seven.". Ok so men are having twice as many sexual partners as women? Are British men having as much gay sex as straight sex? Or are they having more than half of their sexual encounters while on holiday in the rest of the world? Seriously THE NUMBERS DON'T ADD UP. IT'S NOT POSSIBLE!

To be honest I don't think there's really anything shocking about having had 300 sexual partners. Of course if Jeff is unhappy about being promiscuous and wants to stop but finds it hard (ooh err) to do so, he can seek help, and if the BBC thinks that's an interesting topic for documentary, they can make it. But the whole project seems to me to come with the implicit message that promiscuity is automatically shameful and wrong. The tabloids are full of this: words like "cottaging", "dogging" and "wife-swapping" are treated as shocking and shameful despite the fact that none implies any co-ercion or dangerous or dishonest behaviour.

Personally I think if you're honest with people, practice safe sex and are careful not to take advantage of people who are drunk or otherwise vulnerable - do what you like!

*As a footnote we are always told about the dangers of meeting people online. It's presumed to be easier online to misrepresent yourself (i.e. pretend to be younger, etc than you really are) but frankly lots of people do that in real life. Most sites recommend meeting people you've met online in a public place and while there may be benefits to that I tend to think it sends out two very unhelpful messages: (1) you can identify a rapist or violent person by looking at them or briefly speaking to them and (2) if things turn nasty after you've agreed to go somewhere private with someone, it's your own fault.

Easy Tiger

I was on BBC Five Live on Friday night talking about the wildly over-hyped story of Tiger Woods' public apology. Unfortunately the debate wasn't very interesting - other guests kept talking about "brand Tiger" and the impact on the game of golf. Big who cares!!

There is one point I was desperate to make but didn't get the chance though: Sex addiction. Apparently he's been in rehab now for "sex addiction". I am unconvinced that this is a real condition, and deeply unconvinced that Tiger Woods has ever suffered from it.

An addiction drives you to behave in ways you never would normally. If he was rushing to the bathroom during golf tournaments to frantically masturbate I would be prepared to consider it a psychological problem. Why does his condition only kick in when he meets gorgeous supermodels? Sleeping around when you're in an exclusive relationship is not a medical condition. It means you're a bad partner, a liar and a creep but it's not a diagnosis.

The notion that men "just can't help" having sex is a noxious one. No man has ever died from failure to poke his penis into something. And it's trotted out regularly as an excuse for rape and sexual assault as well as infidelity.

My friend Zoe put it best, so I shall quote: "What a knob. As if being an ignorant, self-serving prick was a disease. I think most of my ex-boyfriends have been infected with it, actually. Maybe I am a carrier!"

Out, Out, Damn Spot

Oh dear - I just laughed so hard I nearly lost bladder control.

There is an article in The Times about how the female G-Spot is a myth. I will deal with the article shortly. First though take a look at the very first comment added below the article...

"John Chamberlain wrote:
First of all the Dr. was British, Second of all, the doctor was a man.

Heck he'd have a better chance of finding the Ark of the Covenant.

I have been with over a hundred women and they all had G spots, 10% of them saying no man had ever made them realize they had one,

Just because your doing it wrong, doesn't mean it doesn't exist..."

So the G-spot is right there but all these women just couldn't find it on their own until miracle-boy came along? What percentage of them were just saying whatever the hell they thought would stop him scrabbling about pointlessly down there? I'm going 100%, no? Strange how despite his miraculous sexual technique at least the first 99 of these 100 women didn't end up in a lasting relationship with him?!

Can men really be this delusional? Say it like Obama: Yes They Can!

Here's the skinny boys - if a woman tells you she rarely or never has an orgasm from penetrative sex the best response is to find out what other activities do give her pleasure and then be sure to include some of them in your foreplay (look it up FHM readers). Do not spend the next four hours teeth gritted, dryly grinding away in hope of a miracle. A quick survey of my straight female friends suggests the vast majority have faked orgasm, always for the same reason - just to get him to stop before it starts to really sting and without hurting his feelings.

Now the elusive G-Spot. Does it or does it not exist? Well it depends what exactly the definition of "G-Spot" is. The most sensitive part of a woman's (or man's actually) legs might well be the back of the knees. But no-one talks about the mysterious "knee-spot". Most women would agree that different parts of their vagina are differently sensitive too. The most sensitive area for many women is about 2-4 inches in on the front side. But that doesn't make it some sort of magical spot that exposed to so much as a warm draft sends a woman off multiple-orgasming like some sort of professional bonfire night display. It's just the most sensitive bit so if she's into it, and you're into it, it's not a bad place to focus some attention on your way round.

I feel like I just turned into some sort of sex advice agony aunt. Address all problems to "Dear Cruella..."

Economic Tits

So I know - I should expect this sort of thing from The Sun. Seriously though, I would do a line-by-line except as with most Sun stories there's only about three lines. Apparently the recession's over because more people are going to strip clubs. So....

1) Where are the statistics on this? There aren't any. This is based on one guy saying so - one guy who in return gets his chain of misogyny shops plugged in Britain's best-selling paper.

2) Hooray - lets see what other dodgy industries we can use to prop up the economy. People are buying more heroin than ever. Hired assassins have never been so popular. The demand for mugging old ladies has gone through the roof. Oh whoops, except economic benefits don't justify an industry that's riddled with exploitation.

3) If this is all true then it's very very frightening news indeed. Women are already seriously over-represented in the ranks of those affected by the downturn. We earn less across the board and are way more likely to suffer discrimination, way more likely to have dependent family members to support along with complicated caring arrangements. How many more women will start to feel that their only viable economic choice is to work in one of these horrible places? And then when they're not making as much as they thought, feel like they have to start offering sexual services too...

4) Again if this is true then why exactly would we imagine that lap-dancing is more resistant to economic conditions than other activities? What other industries appear to have strong resiliance against bad economic conditions? Alcohol and cigarettes. Stuff that's addictive, stuff that is actually doing you no good at all but over a number of years you've become so used to that you can't live without it. If lap-dancing is really just the "harmless" fun that these assholes constantly claim it is then when money's a bit tight guys would stop going and come back when they have more disposable income. Not happening.

5) Our reliable correspondant says the customers are city bankers. So bad news for the female city bankers who wanted to get ahead with a bit of networking. He also says more and more women are going to strip clubs - I wonder how many of them really have a "different" attitude to "sexiness and fun" and how many of them are just worried about losing their jobs if they don't go along with the team for the socialising.

6) Of course - random excuse to show more tits in The Sun. Why is this "newspaper" not sold on the top shelves? This is not news. News would have found actual market trend statistics, interviewed an economist rather than a pimp, and included, for balance, comments from those who feel that a rise in strip club attendance may have it's negative side too. This is porn. Pure porn. Porn goes on the top shelf - away from where children can reach it.

The Sun "newspaper" has so much in common with strip clubs: Bad for women. Bad for men. Bad for business. Bad for society.

Two footnotes here: (1) on the subject of how young women are now supposed to have a "different" attitude to "sexiness and fun". When the revolution comes and I am magically able to access whatever pleases me whenever I please I'm going to demand regular hot baths poured for me and about an hour a day of cunnilingus. Going to a grimy, tacky strip club full of drunk blokes letching at women who we all know for the most part really don't want to be there strikes me as neither "sexy" nor "fun". (2) The photo - I took it just before xmas in a major chain book store on Oxford Street (I forget which one - Waterstones or Borders I think). There under a huge "we recommend" sign are the gifts for the man who likes to spend his festive season thinking about women's bodies in a strangely dismembered way. The Big Book of Legs and The Big Book of Breasts. I guess great literature isn't dead...

Cru-Blog on the TV (Again!)

Last Sunday I was back on The Big Questions on BBC One. Thanks to everyone who got in touch and apologies for not posting the link sooner - for some reason it wasn't on the BBC iPlayer until today so I didn't want to post the story before you could watch the show in question. However it is up now so please click here and have a look!

The Daily Misogyny

The Daily Mail is not well known for it's positive attitude towards women and feminism. They really seem to have outdone themselves today though with this "advice" column from Rowan Pelling (pictured).

The problem being dealt with is a woman who feels uncomfortable undressing in front of her boyfriend because she is self-conscious about her body. Her boyfriend is threatening to leave her over this.

So here's what you should really do in that circumstance: Tell your boyfriend to go fuck himself. Firstly if you feel self-conscious around him naked or otherwise, it sounds like he's not necessarily being the most supportive boyfriend. But more importantly if he's trying to use threats like leaving you to get you to do something sexual that you're not ready or willing to do he's an asshole and you should leave. Why does he want you to do something that makes you uncomfortable anyway? Doesn't sound like a very nice guy.

Not in Daily Mail land though... Pelling genuinely starts with this opening line:

"The biggest failing of modern feminism must be the fact women are so hard on themselves about their bodies."

Yeah exactly - see elsewhere on Cru-blog for my classic posts entitled "Your body - not good enough" and "Bigger than a size 6? Why not puke it up?". Feminists have been fighting against the way women are constantly judged on their appearances forever. We've written shelves full of books about it actually, things like The Beauty Myth and Fat is a Feminist Issue. Feminists are out there protesting beauty pagents and complaining about the unreasonable images of women shown in magazines and on TV. I don't remember seeing Ms Pelling on the front line!

So the alternative solution? Strip off and put up with it. She even suggests going to stripping classes to boost your body-confidence? Really.

Lets just hope it's not a real letter and a real person sat at home reading Pelling's noxious advice and taking it on board. You deserve better from both your boyfriend and your media.

Dirty Nigella, Sexy Underwear

I was on BBC Leeds today discussing this piece of ridiculousness from the Daily Mail. Apparently Nigella Lawson is TOO SEXY! Jan Moir is disgusted...

"'Ah, I'm after the scent of the souk,' she cried later, like a madwoman peeling a fresh concubine"

Has Moir bothered to double-check the definition of a souk? It means market in an Arab or Berber city, like the one pictured. Which bit of that is supposed to be overpoweringly sexual? Moir explains further...

"'They infuse everything with a glorious sweetness,' she whispers, and rolls them around in the palm of her hand. Then she proceeds to chop them. For they are onions, of course. How shameless."

It's shameless to like onions now?

Or could it be that Ms Lawson represents a successful woman who is actually good at something (cooking and presenting rather smug TV shows about it), confident about her own sexuality and in control of her own image? Now that is disgusting, right?

Never mind that a few channels away NutsTV is running back-to-back shows with names like "Make Me A Glamour Model", "Sextastic Double Header"and "UK Uncovered with Nuts Babe Search". And of course the Daily Mail itself is simultaneously running photo-heavy articles like this one "Small Wonders: Luxurious Underwear to Warm the Cold Nights", "Nicola McLean's Famous Assets Get Covered in Snow" and "Rihanna Narrowly Avoids Wardrobe Malfunction as She Performs in Yet Another Barely-There Outfit"

But no, of course, that dreadful slapper Lawson is the problem.

Sex and the Tories

Thanks very much to everyone who's been in touch since Saturday about my appearance on BBC Radio Five Live. For those who missed it - the subject up for debate was those dreadful "purity" and "virginity" cult spreading over here at the moment from the US. Of course there was mention of religion being pushed on school children, as well as the drive for abstinence-only education. What we ended up focusing on though was whether there is some objective "moral good"- regardless of religion - to holding off on sex until you are married. Well my point was that sex isn't dirty or disgusting or morally bankrupt - done right with the right person it's a lot of fun.

Well of course the phone lines started ringing saying I didn't know what I was talking about and that casual sex causes disease*(1), teen pregnancy*(1) and leads to emotional hurt when relationships break up*(2). So I said that I had had casual sex in my life so I did know what I was talking about, probably rather better than those arguing with me.

Anyway that was about the last word of reason on the show because the phone lines were going crazy with people ringing in to call me all sorts of names... I mean people were actually cut off because of the language they were using towards me! Too funny. One guy rang in to say I'd never get married now and that if Mr Cru had heard me on air he'd be gone before I got home (he was still there)...

And amazingly while healthy, safe, consensual sex between two adults is enough to have the general public screaming in outrage, it's considered so normal and commonplace for men to go out and pay women for sexual services that they hand out discount vouchers for it at the Tory party conference! How screwed up is that?

For some reason that picture of David Cameron, which I saw in the Daily Mail, seemed appropriate...

*(1) The evidence suggests the opposite - that the abstinence promotion organisations in the US and the UK have resulted in more STDs and teen pregnancies because young people are not taught the facts about their own bodies and not encouraged to carry condoms.

*(2) Weird - because you don't have to have sex in a relationship to be hurt when it's over. And who the hell goes through life without experiencing some emotional pain? Why would you even try to do that, regardless that it's pretty obviously not possible?

One For The Husbands and Boyfriends...

Female heterosexual readers currently in a sexual relationship (of whatever commitment and intensity level), may wish to direct their partners to this interesting read on the subject of female orgasm from the legendary Shere Hite.

Schools and Relationships

The NSPCC, and I'm sure not going to make myself popular arguing with a group as respected as them, are saying that schools should teach more about relationships in sex education. This comes in response to data from Childline suggesting 50 children a day ring up saying they feel pressured to have sex. And in that light the NSPCC suggestion sounds wildly sane but I have to admit it actually made me flinch a little.

At the moment schools are only obliged to teach the facts of human reproduction. The first thing that frightens me is that if the syllabus is expanded out to include relationships, what is the risk that the facts of biology will be lost? I think children have a right to understand how their bodies work in factual scientific terms. Many especially faith schools are reluctant to teach these facts and given the chance to hide them discreetly behind a barrage of warnings about the unholy nature of any kind of relationship not fully approved by religious leaders, the message could be watered down beyond recognition.

It's also difficult to understand how children will react to hearing the facts of biology lined up next to what can be nothing more than advice about relationships. I think a clear line needs to be drawn between the facts of how the human body works and advice about how to deal with the stresses and strains of relationships.

And finally who exactly is going to set the relationship agenda? I'm sure religious leaders would love to. And so would some of the virginity cults that we seem to be importing from the US at the moment. The uproar from religious parents if their children were taught that anything other than chastity and fidelity was acceptable and enjoyable means that the education is always going to be skewed. Who is going to let kids know that promiscuity, safely practiced, can be a lot of fun? And we all know the fuss that ensues if you teach children that it's ok to be gay.

All that said, I'm not totally against raising in school the subject of dealing with pressure to have sex. I think children should be taught that they have human rights, and that one of those is the right to make their own decisions about sex (or this could be covered under the women's studies addition to the national curriculum that I've been talking about forever). But I'd like to see that taught separately from the biological facts of sex.

(Reposted from the F-Word, photo by Reading is Fun)

Good News, Badly Presented

Interesting report from the NY Times which has only just come to my attention. In short it turns out that young guys for the most part are pretty respectful of the women they date. Very few in the survey conducted by the Journal of Adolescence appeared to be obsessed with sex, the majority were interested in women because they liked them and wanted to get to know them better.

Now the NY Times seems surprised by this. I'm not, the vast majority of guys I know of all ages are nothing like the noxious stereotypes portrayed everywhere from the lad mags to "teen" films like American Pie. By the same token the number of young women I know who act like Clueless is, well, zero.

Now to start with they title the article "Inside the Mind of the Boy Dating Your Daughter", which plays straight into the idea that sex is some sort of predatory act perpetrated by evil men on innocent unsuspecting women. And then it goes on to say "The overall findings are contrary to cultural beliefs that boys are interested primarily in sex and not relationships." Cultural beliefs from the 19th century maybe but I don't know anyone who really believes that.

There is also a fairly undisguised SEX IS WRONG message hidden between the lines. "Let’s give boys more credit,'’ said study author Andrew Smiler, an assistant professor of psychology at the university. “Although some of them are just looking for sex, most boys are looking for a relationship."

But there's really nothing wrong with "just wanting sex" as long as you are open and honest about what you are doing. There are plenty of young women out there interested to learn about sex through experience, who may be comfortable doing so outside the confines of a relationship. And that's ok, in fact it's pretty healthy to feel that way and have that desire to learn. Even if you're somebody's daughter.

The report concludes that parents should talk to their sons as much about relationship-forming as they do their daughters. Which is a bit like stating the obvious - although I have to say I never had any advice off my parents about relationships (well unless you count thinly veiled hints that I shouldn't expect too much...). Mr Cru by contrast did, but I think that had more to do with the families we came from than any gender issues.

Ask The Sexperts!

I only just found this piece by "sex expert" (as you like, I'm not bad myself) Dr Pam Spurr - it's a couple of months old. The feature in The Times claims that feminism "is killing sex" and - in their own words - that career women are risking their relationships by saying "no". Hmmm.

Now to start totally the wrong way about I should point out that her concluding paragraph I (almost) wholeheartedly agree with:

"Never be bullied into sexual activity that turns you off or be pressured into sex that doesn’t satisfy you. But always be prepared to discuss your feelings and desires and listen to his. Hopefully, that will improve your sex life and help to strengthen your relationship in other ways, too."

I just don't get why it's listen to HIS feelings and desires. Doesn't she mean YOUR PARTNER'S or is Dr Spurr's advice only for women?

Well evidently the article is about women and what we're doing wrong. Here are some choice extracts:

"With increasing frequency, women in their twenties, thirties and forties take a pragmatic, postfeminist view that sex is something over which they have no need to negotiate."

Surely negotiating is a pretty odd way of sorting out what you do in bed. How about doing all the things that both you and your partner enjoy and want to do. Negotiation implies some sort of compromise - doing things you don't really want to.

" When [case study woman] found that the stress of their differences diminished her sex drive, she felt completely justified in suggesting separate bedrooms. As she recounted to me – with bitter regret, after their divorce – sex had been the last thing on her mind. Her biggest mistake was not considering what was on his mind."

Weird - has anyone else on here ever moved into separate bedrooms from their partner without thinking this might have some impact on their sex life?

"too many women see the sexual side of their lives as something to be claimed completely and utterly as their own"

Yes, it is. Who the hell else "claims" my sex life?

"At the risk of being called ... antifeminist, I’d go so far as to say that for both partners sex could be considered a duty, if it is something that one partner knows would make the other happy."

Personally I think I would rather eat my own vomit than have sex with someone who was doing it out of duty. Also having sex out of a sense of duty when you don't really want to is more or less guaranteed to put you off wanting it again.

"Does he really want to go up on the roof to repair a leak on a Sunday afternoon? Does she really want to take out the rubbish in the pouring rain? No, but partners in relationships do such things because they know that it makes the other happy. Sex should be seen in the same light."

Sex should be seen in the same light as taking out the rubbish or repairing a leaky roof? How bad is your sex life Dr Spurr? And no they're not comparable because sex is an act of intimacy so it makes no sense to do it unless both partners actively want to.

"Why should the sexual area of a relationship be ringed by an emotional fence that makes it a no-go zone for discussion, while other areas are discussed openly, argued over and resolved?"

This Dr Spurr is only true in your world, everyone else I know talks about sex.

"I have spoken to a fair few thirty-something women who settle down with a “decent chap” knowing that he’ll make a good father. On producing babies, though, many such men find themselves left out in the cold when they still desire the sexual warmth that they initially enjoyed. "

Here's some advice for men feeling sexually frustrated after their wife has had a baby: put some more hours into taking care of the child, make sure your wife gets at least some good night's sleep and maybe she'll feel up to it again. Don't for crying out loud suggest it's her "duty" to put out after two days in labour and two hours sleep.

"[If you don't have much sex with your man] You may find ... that he will seek sexual satisfaction without you. I certainly don’t justify infidelity but I can often understand why it happens. In contrast, when a woman’s sexual needs are denied, Heaven help the man responsible."

So Dr Spurr can sort-of understand why men not getting much sex would go and have affairs but considers it outrageous for women in the same situation to complain about it. Remind me next time I'm seeking a relationship counselor not to call her.

"In other cases I have found an even more disturbing attitude: that it’s fine to use occasional sex in a cold-hearted and calculated way as a favour or bartering tool for jobs well done by the man."

So we should be negotiating about sex, and it is the same as household chores but we shouldn't be negotiating household chores in exchange for sex. Keep your story straight please!

And as if the story itself wasn't bad enough there are comments after it...

"All women treat sex as a weapon. Lower testosterone, lower needs. But they have the power to choose, something we men do not have. And so they use us. Over, and over, and over, and over...

Gerbil, Los Angeles, U.S.A."

Hmm... Gerbil (fitting rodent-based name by the way) if you don't have the power to choose whether or not you have sex, you should hand yourself as a potential sex offender.

And then this one which I think rather speaks for itself:

"I'm a 44 yr old man having twice a year sex.I am not a good husband ,i dont wash up,i empty the dishwasher;i dont do the laundry.I pay bill for the washer -dryer and iron my clothes and the childrens .When i come in from work i find at times the house is not clean to my standards ,so i get out the hoover i bought and sort it out.As mentioned by others my marital problems stem from money...having paid £108,000 in mortgage payments over the last 15 years my wife had to recently step in and make these payments for 5 to 6 months while i was unemployed(previously she had been through the same experience for over 12 months) strangely at that time our relationship did not change.But since my bad luck it has,i married a woman i felt i was compatible with;modern appliances take away her "tired" excuse...selfish control is what's occuring here..if i wanted a "companion" i should have bought a dog ...

derek, kingston, surrey"

Should really have added "I don't entirely speak comprehensible English" in there somewhere!

Miss Chastity

I am not exactly a fan of the Miss World competition (surprise!) but surely if it's not to be banned for objectification of women, it should instead be banned for gross hypocrisy. The event which features women from around the world being judged on the basis of their appearances in off-the-shoulder dresses and the notorious swimsuit round has now told Miss France to step down because she's been pictured in a magazine eating yogurt in a seductive fashion. Seems that the competition is for the most beautiful naive virgin on the face of the planet. How pathetic.

On a related note, I had coffee today with a friend who lives and works in the middle east and we were talking about the state of women's rights out there - obviously not good. One point he made which I thought was very interesting was how women's rights are affected by the insistence that they receive no sex education before they are married. Men meanwhile are taught by male relatives and often bought prostitutes as coming-of-age presents (mmm, how to foster a positive attitude to women in your children part six...). As a result women when they get married often don't know the mechanics of sex and what they should or shouldn't expect. This of course leaves them hopelessly open to abuse.

This Year In Sex

Alternet has published a list of their top sex-related stories of the year. Here's my take on them:

"Top 10 Sex and Relationships Stories of 2007

10. Is Open Marriage the Modern Couple's Answer to Infidelity?
By Joslyn Matthews, Sirens Magazine
Why does open marriage work for some married couples and destroy others? The answer could be that for it to work, you need to be in an extremely healthy relationship."

Do modern couples need an answer to infidelity? I know plenty of successfully monogamous couples. I think the answer to modern couple's infidelity is honesty - discussing what you want, what you feel relationship would benefit from. Do whatever you like, but do it honestly.

"9. Don't Look Gay: Why American Men Are Afraid of Intimacy With Each Other
By John Ibson, American Sexuality Magazine
Why do adolescent boys often leave empty seats between each other when they go to the movies? It's a product of the culture of male homophobia in America which pushes men to avoid intimacy and gay stereotypes."

Certainly true that in the UK too there is a real phobia for a lot of men about looking or acting "gay" or "girly". It's homophobia, misogyny and it's very much encouraged by the media and big companies who can use it to sell stuff.

"8. Why Men Should Be Included in Abortion Discussion
By Courtney E. Martin, AlterNet
Locking men out of conversations about abortion often comes at a great expense."

Men are involved in abortion discussions - when they have a good relationship with the woman in question. If they don't - why would you discuss what happens to your own body with someone who is hostile to you? We're not stupid.

"7. Is Monogomy Natural?
By Anneli Rufus, AlterNet
A lifetime of love versus a quick roll with a stranger. It's funny how we can have two seemingly opposite urges at the same time."

No it's not. It's clearly "natural" to have both a desire for a lasting relationship and an urge to have a lot of sex. More importantly however - does it matter if monogamy is "natural"? It's "natural" to cr*p in a ditch but I for one choose not to live with men who do so. Human are supposed to be civilised, so we can choose for ourselves how we behave and what we do, we are not slaves to our own "natural" urges.

"6. The Deeper Meaning in the Republican Sex Scandals
By Susie Bright, SusieBright.com
Another two gay-bashing, Klan-loving, pulpit-slurping Republicans have disgraced themselves. But there is much more we can learn from the improprieties of David Vitter and Bob Allen."

I think it's pretty obvious that the people shouting the loudest about the un-godliness of homosexual sex are the ones finding it hardest to repress that urge within themselves.

"5. Can Women Separate Love and Sex?
By Jennifer Armstrong, Sirens Magazine
Sex, like eating, is a biological drive, and you will lose your mind if you repress it for too long. But some women stave off the need much longer than others."

Of course many women have sex without falling in love. I know I have, I know I am not the only one. I also don't think you'll lose your mind if you don't have sex. Nor do I think sex is like eating - you'll die if you don't eat, if you don't have sex you'll just have to take up another hobby to fill the extra time. If the biological drive gets too much for you - I recommend masturbating.

(Note: within a week someone will have found this page by googling the phrase "I recommend masturbating"!)

"4. The Sexual Self-Interest of the Cuckolded Wife
By Susie Bright, SusieBright.com
How does Suzanne Craig, wife of the outed senator, stand next to her liar of a husband at a press conference and not hurl her guts?"

More generally why do women put up with men who mis-treat them? Well they figure on whatever misguided logic that the investment of time and effort they've put into the relationship is worth something and they don't want to throw it away rashly before they've looked at the options. Or they were only in the relationship for career reasons/money/etc to start with. Or they believe God wants them to "stand by their man". Or they've been taught by society that it is a woman's responsibility to make relationships work so they're blaming themselves and trying to make things right.

"3. Do Women Enjoy Chocolate More Than Sex?
By Danielle Egan, The Tyee
Author Joan Sewell says so in her new autobiography where she embraces her low libido. The media have hailed her book as "brilliant," but scientific literature disagrees with her theory."

Depends who makes the chocolate and who's having the sex. Mr Cru vs a couple of Quality Street - I'll take the former, some unattractive slimeball vs a nice big chunk of Lindt and Sprungli - I'll be switching to the latter. As for low libidos, I think the media these days does have a very "sex is all that matters" attitude so if you've a low libido and you're happy that way, good for you. Of course it could be a symptom of some other problem - physical or mental - so best to check, but if not then it's up to you whether you want to see it as a problem. The real issue is that while low libido for women is often not seen as a problem - a man who doesn't want much sex is swiftly dosed up with viagra. There's a real sense that for men libido is closely related to identity. And that's messed up.

"2. Is Pornography Really Harmful?
By Michael Bader and Vivian Dent, AlterNet
In response to Robert Jensen's controversial book, Getting Off, two clinical psychologists debate the intersection of violence and sexual fantasy."

Yes pornography really is harmful. Thousands of reports, all over the world, yes it's hamful. Why are we still having this debate?

"1. Pornography and the End of Masculinity
By Don Hazen, AlterNet
Mainstream porn has come up with more ways than ever to humiliate and degrade women. Why, then, is porn more popular? Includes an excerpt from Robert Jensen's new book, Getting Off."

Porn is more popular than ever because it comes up with ever more ways to humiliate and degrade women. That's what it's readers want. And that's why it's harmful.

Save Us All...

The BBC have an article up today asking whether it's acceptable for disabled people to visit brothels. And when it says disabled people, let me be very clear: it means disabled MEN. They are honestly proposing that while able bodied men shouldn't be allowed to support a corrupt industry and fund human trafficking, sexual slavery, institutionalised rape and brutality, we should make an exception for men with a serious disability.

Now I'm a bit confused, I mean how disabled would a guy have to be to qualify for the proposed scheme? Would there be a government register of who is and isn't allowed to pay for sex? Maybe a points system? Lost one leg? Sorry you can still get the other one over. Lost both legs? OK but hand-jobs only. And if you've lost both legs and are deaf and blind? Presumably Gordon Brown will come round himself and personally suck you off.

Personally I don't believe anybody has a RIGHT to get laid. If anything, you have the right to go out and TRY to get laid. But I also think that the article isn't really about a right to get laid, it's about a right for a man to get laid with a gorgeous young fit woman. And they definitely don't have that. One thing they don't address is whether there might be women out there who - for whatever reason - are just as lonely, who might be interested in these guys - if of course they didn't sound like such unpleasant individuals.

And this leads to the bigger issue: what about the disabled WOMEN? Have they not sexual desires too? And if all the disabled guys are off visiting brothels there'll be fewer guys to go round...

Anyway if you'd like to hear a lot more about disabilities and sex I can only recommend you come along and see the fabulous Liz Carr (pictured) performing with me at Soho Comedy Club on Monday (8pm Roundtable Pub, St Martin's Court, nr Leicester Square, London, £5)

Match Made in Hell

I have just read this story about a guy who's been serially drugging and raping women he met on match.com. It comes with all the usual women-not-being-believed crap and it's taken forever to get a conviction but it comes hot on the heel of a friend of mine telling me a real horror story about a guy she met on an online dating site. I don't want to get into detail because of course she told me what had happened to her in confidence but trust me it was awful.

Years ago before I met Mr Cru I went on a few of these sites and dated a few guys. I think my batting record was:

1 I didn't fancy and didn't meet up with again.
1 I slept with and dated again but it petered out shortly.
3 I didn't fancy but became friends with (and still am).

So there's certainly a positive side to these sites, I met some cool people (then I went out and picked Mr Cru up in a late night bar. Ha!), but there are risks too. Now of course I'm not trying to write some patronising "women warned about dangers on online dating " piece. I neither think women should stay home nor that the Internet has mystical powers to corrupt your soul (from the woman who blogs ten times a day!). My point is that there are different ways to meet guys and the risks are different:

Through trusted friends is always the safest - because at very least they know it's going to get back to them if they don't respect you.
While out with friends is safer - because your friends are there to make sure you're ok.
On a late night two-person date after randomly meeting on a dating website is riskier, where possible better to meet in the daytime, or meet with a few others. Also better to meet for a meal/cinema/theatre trip rather than straight on to the alcoholic drinks.

Also safer to meet in a country where the police take rape victims seriously and attempt to prosecute cases wherever possible, and where public attitudes towards rape have left the middle ages, i.e. not here.

Maybe match.com and co. could introduce a "see other users ratings" section to their site so you could give jerks no stars!

Will Shag For Laundry?

Feministing has picked up on this rather worrisome article on CBS apparently the author is advising men that doing more housework will get them laid more often.

Over on Feministing there's lots of discussion of what share of the housework is a fair share. I'm sure that 50% is the obvious answer assuming that both partners have a balanced relationship in other areas. And also on whether men should get extra praise for doing housework since it constitutes a break-out from traditional gender roles. Well I'm happy to give them extra praise but I want it right back for me when I get a job, wind up as primary breadwinner and manage to unscrew tight jar lids on my own.

What bugs me more though is the other end of the deal... the idea that women will (sub-consciously mind) trade sex for housework. This rather assumes:

1) The woman doesn't actually want sex.

2) The woman, despite not wanting sex, is prepared (sub-consciously anyway) to do it in return for other things.

3) The man wants sex all the time.

4) The man wants sex with the woman even if the woman doesn't want sex and presumably therefore even if the woman isn't enjoying it.

5) The man is comfortable (consciously to his mind) trading other things for sex.

If any one of those things was true of my relationship, I would be seriously worried.