The Right to Adultery

In an opinion piece, columnist and president of the National Organization for Marriage Maggie Gallagher questions whether Americans should have the "right to adultery".

Going against the commonly held opinion of many in the legal community, Gallagher takes a dim view of tolerating marital infidelity.

Citing that "adultery involves twin offenses: (1) the violation by a married person of his or her vows; and (2) a third party's decision to invade another person's marriage, to seek their own personal satisfaction at the expense of the unknowing and unconsenting spouse", she is especially intolerant of using this common phenomenon as "a pathway to commercial success, " citing websites that help straying spouses to find sex partners, Rielle Hunter capitalizing on her status as "the other woman", and prostitute Ashley Dupre making money as a sex columnist on the New York Post. Gallagher states that she would like to see commercially soliciting for adultery be legally classified the same way as soliciting for prostitution.

Waving aside the truth that one cannot legislate morality, she believes that we need to "come up with a way to encourage a little common decency."

Gallagher insists that she doesn't want to persecute "every man or woman who has sinned," but rather that "people who commit this moral trespass to have the decency not to attempt to profit from it in the national media".

OK, where to begin?

First of all, the right for any adult to have sovereignty over their own bodies; the free choice to engage in any sort of sexual behavior they see fit, provided that their partner(s) are consenting adults, should be beyond question. Even when people have willingly agreed to restrict some of that freedom when entering a monogamous marriage, any departures from this agreement should be an entirely private matter between those involved and not something for the government to meddle in. The injured party should retain the right to sue for breach of contract as a practical matter, but the government has no business meddling in the private affairs of adults as a moral matter. Better yet, the government should drop sexual exclusivity as a necessary component of a legal marriage

Secondly, notions of what is moral and decent are highly subjective matters. Who gets to decide what is moral or decent and what should such ideas be based on? Gallagher openly states that adultery is a "sin", which is a purely religious idea and should have absolutely no place whatsoever in secular law that governs the actions of all citizens of all religions and of no religion.

My suggestion to Gallagher and others like her who are offended by those making money off of adultery would be to vote with their wallets and their feet. Don't patronize businesses that match married people with new sex partners, don't tune into TV shows or read magazine articles that feature Rielle Hunter, don't read newspaper columns by prostitutes, and so on. But don't restrict the freedom of others to do so, either.

Thoughts?

Study Claims That Liberalism, Atheism, and Sexual Exclusivity in Men Correlate With Higher IQs

A new study, which will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly, has claimed that higher IQs, on average, are correlated with liberalism, atheism, and sexual exclusivity in men (but not in women!).

I buy the first two correlations, as I'm liberal and agnostic bordering on atheist, but I strongly beg to differ on the last correlation. I have never been sexually exclusive with anyone in the 30+ years I've been sexually active, yet I had the highest IQ in my high school graduating class (140). I know this because the guidance counselor made a point of telling me so shortly before I graduated.

The reasoning given was that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans' evolutionary past.

Sexual exclusivity goes against the grain evolutionarily. With a goal of spreading genes, early men had multiple mates, which helped the human species survive

George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with "unconventional" philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be "ways to communicate to everyone that you're pretty smart."

I see several things wrong with the inclusion of sexual exclusivity as a factor involved in higher intelligence. First of all, sexual activity and reproduction are no longer inextricably linked; thus promiscuity no longer necessarily means that a man will sire large amounts of children. Secondly, no libertine worth his salt, myself included, sleeps with a large variety of women with the desire to "spread our genes around." I've had hundreds of partners in my lifetime, yet I've managed to sire only one child.

Considering that every male celebrity who strays from his marriage now garners widespread societal disapproval and extensive publicity, I'd hardly say that sexual exclusivity is no longer an "unconventional" idea for men. Sexual exclusivity for both sexes has been one of our society's most sacred of cows for quite some time now, regardless of human nature.

Indeed, to be openly and unashamedly non-monogamous is now an unconventional philosophy in our current society.

And in light of the fact that it was religion that imposed monogamy on society in the first place and a large part of being religious today is to accept and adhere to the idea of sexual exclusivity with a single mate, it would seem as if intentionally non-monogamous lifestyles would be more accepted among liberals and atheists.

An interesting study to be sure, but one with a lot of holes in it.

Thoughts?

Thoughts on the John Edwards Fiasco

When I first heard of the John Edwards affair, my first instinct as a libertine was to yawn and tell people that his marriage was none of their business and that he wasn't running for the office of upholding monogamy.

But as the months have passed, I find myself more disgusted with Edwards' behavior with every new report from the media. I still don't care that he strayed from his marriage or even that he sired an extramarital child, which is entirely besides the point of my opinion.

Rather, my disgust stems from how he's handled -- or not handled -- this affair. Instead of owning up to what he'd done -- or simply telling the press that his private life was none of their business -- he first denied that he'd had an affair with the woman in question. Then he later recanted and admitted he'd slept with her. But when she had a baby girl, he denied he was the father, pushing it off on one of his campaign aides. More recently, he's finally admitted that the baby is his. And now it's come to light that sex tapes exist of him and the "other woman".

Can we give the man an award for insensitivity and general dumbassery? Having an affair and siring a child outside one's marriage happens and while it's a political liability in our society, it's hardly a unique thing. And while the timing of the affair was particularly insensitive, considering his wife's illness, he's made it all the much worse with his unwillingness to admit to the truth. He's further humiliated his wife, while at the same time left a public record of repudiating an innocent little girl who will one day grow up to know that her father valued his political career more than he did her.

It doesn't really matter that he strayed or why, as there are dozens of reasons why people do so. But if he was going to get some on the side, he should have used his brain and done it properly. First of all, Edwards in his in fifties and the woman in question in her forties. Had neither of them ever heard of birth control? Granted, he might have thought her past the age of conceiving, but he shouldn't have taken any chances.

And for fuck's sake, what kind of a moron makes sex tapes proving the adultery to all and sundry? It's shit like this that makes me question his power of judgment in other matters as well.

Edwards would have done much better to handle this as David Letterman handled being outed as straying from his marriage, instead of turning himself into a Jerry Springer sideshow.

Thoughts?

Four Types of Sex

As I see it, sex is a very basic, primal, and instinctual thing. For me to
be attracted to a particular partner, an emotional response isn't
necessary, though it's not unwelcome in some instances. Rather, it's a
matter of chemistry and hormonal response. I don't have this
response with just anyone, but I most certainly have it quite a bit
more often than an emotional response.

I classify sex in four basic ways:

Sex with no love and no chemistry/hormonal response
Sex with love only
Sex with chemistry/hormonal response only
Sex with both love and chemistry/hormonal response


I've tried it all four ways.

Sex with no love and no chemistry/hormonal response is mechanical
and unsatisfying. I've only done this a few times and I don't do
this sort at all anymore.

Sex with love and no chemistry/hormonal response is not sexually
satisfying, either. Such instances are a matter of trying too hard
and trying to force something that isn't there. It also has the
highest probability for emotional hurt. I also avoid these types of
encounters as well.

Sex with chemistry/hormonal response only can be extremely
satisfying depending upon the context, such as one night stands and
fuckbuddy relationships. They work best for anyone who is able to compartmentalize and see thevalue of sex for its own sake. As a libertine, this type is what is most common for me, as chemical attraction is vastly more common than being in love.

Sex with both love and chemistry/hormonal response is, of course, also
highly satisfying in its proper context, which are long term
committed relationships. However, they are less desirable when one is
merely interested in a one time deal, or a fuckbuddy relationship without
other expectations. This type tends to create complications which are a hassle in those types of relationships.

So, though I am a libertine, I am not entirely indiscriminate, as there are only two of the four types that I am comfortably engaging in.

Who's Your Daddy?

Dennis Hatchett, a 29 year old minimum wage worker, has father 21 children by 11 different women. The children range in age from 11 months to 11 years.

"I had four kids in the same year. Twice." Hatchett admitted.

According to the Huffington Post, Hatchett was in court last week, appearing on the docket 11 times in regards to 15 of the 21 children who he's not paid child support for on a timely basis.

Though the guy is a Darwinian success and is assured of a large number of descendants to carry one his genes, I couldn't help but wonder what the fuck was he thinking. I do know, however, which head he was thinking with.

My comment to the Huffington Post article follows below:

Now, I can't blame the guy for wanting to get laid a lot with a wide variety of women. I've had a rather large number of lovers over the years, myself.

However, in 30+ years of being sexually active, I have only ONE child. I know what a condom is for and I'm not afraid to use them.

I raised the one child I had to adulthood, and wasn't interested, nor did I have the financial resources, to raise more. One was more than enough for me.

I'm wondering if this guy has chicken fat for brains by siring so many kids he can't afford to support.

Conservatives Looking for Government to Solve Their Problems

Recently reading an Alternet article, Super Prude Prosecutors Charge Teens With Pornography and Worse For Sexy Text Messages by JoAnn Wypijewski, I learned that 3 teen boys and 3 teen girls from Greensburg Salem High School in Pennsylvania were charged with child pornography.

The articles stated that, "the girls, ages 14 and 15, are charged with taking pictures of themselves, nude or seminude; the boys, 15, 16 and 17, with receiving them."

In other words, no pedophile adults were involved in any way in this "crime", nor were the teens forced or duped into creating and sending these photos. They were just teens being teens, exploring their sexuality as adolescents have done for generations.

The images were found when the students' cell phones had been confiscated by school officials, currently a common practice for unauthorized use of cell phones on school grounds during school hours.

What was not standard practice was the fact that these students' phones were not merely locked in a drawer, untouched, until they were returned to the students or their parents. School officials snooped into the private files of the phones in question where they discovered the private images, not meant for public consumption. The students involved were not suspected of any crimes, but merely for breaking the school rule about cell phone use by students.

The article also stated:

No one knows how many kids are poised for long sentences, life sentences (a possibility under federal law), plea deals that cast them in the pariah-land of sex offenders. Prosecutors have gone after teens in at least Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania.

My response to this article follows below:

Conservatives Looking for Government to Solve Their Problems

Conservatives are always hooting and hollering about the evils of "big government" and constantly extol the virtues of handling matters as much as possible in the private sector.

By criminalizing all types of adolescent sexual exploration and activity in the manner outlined in this article; behavior that has traditionally been handled solely by the parents of the teens involved, conservatives are looking to the government to play a role that should rightly remain that of a parent.

Hypocrisy, much?

The potential to stamp out normal teenage sexuality with such draconian laws is very low, even if a large percentage of our society considered this a worthy goal. (I don't).

However, the potential for ruining the future adult lives of normal teenagers is very high, and extremely inadvisable.

Let's leave a parent's role to parents and not expect the government to parent our children in regards to sexual expression among consenting parties.

Let us not return to 17th century Puritan sexual ethics. It's a bad fit for the 21st century.

A Different View

In my last entry about the beauty pageant clones, I spelled out what I didn’t like about these women. Following below is a photo of a woman who shows what I do like:

This is the actress Jane Russell, in a photo taken some time in the 1940s.

Lush curves, creamy skin, bedroom eyes, kissable lips. Mmm. Neither of the metallic bimbos in the previous entry hold a candle to the lovely Jane.

Sometimes, I think I was born in the wrong era.

Recent Studies Show Circumcision Benefits

In March, the New England Journal of Medicine released the findings of a random clinical trial study show that circumcision not only reduces the incidence of HIV infection in men, but also reduces transmission of herpes simplex virus Type 2 and the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV).

After analyzing the results of the study, done on 3000 Ugandan men, the researchers estimated that circumcised men had a 25 percent reduced risk of HSV-2 infection. For the types of HPV. that cause genital cancer, it was found that the circumcised men had a 35 percent reduced risk of infection. Both studies were controlled for various health and behavioral factors.

The authors of this study suggest the difference might be because of the retraction of an uncircumcised man's foreskin during intercourse exposes the penis to infection, and that the moist area under the foreskin may then provide a protected environment in which the viruses can flourish.

“The findings suggest that there are important lifetime health benefits to the procedure,” Dr Ronald H. Gray, a professor of reproductive epidemiology at Johns Hopkins and the senior author of the study, said. “I think it’s important that pediatricians consider the lifelong benefits that might accrue from circumcision when they are advising parents on whether the procedure should be performed in baby boys.”

In 2007, prompted by the results of other similar studies, a consortium of experts convened by the World Health Organization and UNAIDS (the United Nations' HIV program) announced that circumcision should indeed "be part of a comprehensive HIV prevention package." A package which, of course, includes safer sex practices.

Also, a team of researchers from the CDC, Johns Hopkins, and the Baltimore health department examined the records of more than 1,000 African American males — all heterosexual — who tested positive for HIV at Maryland clinics. Uncircumcised men were 50 percent more likely to be infected.

An editorial published with the first study reported noted that U.S. circumcision rates were declining, and that they were lowest among black and Hispanic patients, groups with disproportionately high rates of HIV., herpes infection and cervical cancer. Sixteen states also have eliminated Medicaid coverage for routine circumcision, which may exacerbate the problem among the poor.

Many American doctors in recent years had no longer been recommending routine infant circumcision, backed by anti-circumcision organizations, who claimed that it was merely a cosmetic procedure that caused unnecessary pain to infant boys, as circumcisions were done without anesthesia. In light of recent findings, however, many of these same doctors are reconsidering their position.

According to Marvin L. Wang, co-director of newborn nurseries at Massachusetts General Hospital,says that since the 1990s, it's become routine in U.S. hospitals to anesthetize babies before the procedure and complications are now rare, about 3 in 1000 and are minor and treatable.

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, circumcised boys have a lower risk of urinary-tract infections and penile cancer, and a slightly lower risk of getting sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV. Uncircumcised men are also subject to balanoposthitis (inflammation of the foreskin and glans), phimosis (a foreskin that's too tight to retract over the glans), and paraphimosis (a foreskin stuck in the retracted position).

After reading about all of this, I was glad yet again that I am circumcised and I'm confident I made the right decision for my son. Even if the benefits of circumcision to prevent the problems mentioned above were only minuscule, it would have been worth it in my book

Negative Attitudes Toward Food and Sex Come From the Same Source

Yet again, Alternet has giving me blogging fodder. In the article in questions, Which Is Worse These Days: Being Called Fat or Whore by Charlotte Hilton Andersen, the author explores the idea:

In an interesting switch, food and sex have completely reversed their roles in society. And all within only a matter of two generations.

My response to the article follows below:

Negative Attitudes Toward Food and Sex Come From the Same Source

We must remember that our country's culture has a strong Calvinist streak running through it, starting with the Puritans.

Calvinism values ascetic self-denial and is suspicious of anything that even suggests excess, which would include food and sex. It takes a negative view of human nature, with its doctrine of "total depravity", which takes the view every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin. Thus, all the basic drives that go along with being human, which would include the drive to eat and to mate, believing that such things, while necessary for the survival of the species, must be tightly controlled.

In both the instances cited in this article, food and sex, what is being resisted is hedonism, which is a worldview which values pleasure for its own sake. Eating and having sex, are both naturally pleasurable activities. A sex hedonist is a libertine, while a food hedonist is a gourmand.

Naturally, both forms of hedonism offend the Calvinist mentality, as Calvinism is suspicious of anything that indicates that people are having too much of a good time, as such pursuits take away from focusing on God.

Though most people today who take a negative attitude against those who enjoy sex and/or food "too much" in their opinion, are generally not consciously aware of the Calvinist roots of their beliefs, such roots are so deeply embedded in our culture as to be sacred cows.

Thus, many of those who rail against "whores" and fat people get emotional about it and take on a moralistic tone and cast sex and food hedonists as bad people deserving of public scorn.

And this is precisely what makes such attitudes so hard to root out; they are so deeping woven into our cultural fabric that most people are unaware of the religious roots of it all.

It would be better if people realized that everyone in this life has their own burdens to bear and that no one is perfect or in a position to act as moral judges to others. Pleasure for its own sake isn't bad, but self-righteously meddling into the private lives of others is.

The guiding rule should be, "If it doesn't infringe on your right to do differently, then it's none of your business." Simple enough, I'd think.

Want a Long Life? Get Laid Regularly.

Studies have shown that not only can having regular sex help people feel younger for longer, it may even extend one's life. Some of the health benefits of an active sex life are:

- Weight control. Sex can burn 84 calories in 30 minutes, while also improving heart and muscle strength, flexibility and muscle tone. Having regular sex can be used as a tool for those who are looking to shed pounds or maintain a healthy weight.

--I've found this to be quite true for myself, as my weight has fluctuated very little over the years.

- Pain relief. Before popping another aspirin, think about hopping into bed. Sex naturally releases endorphins and corticosteroids, which can help relieve pain from migraines, menstrual cramps and chronic back problems.

--Sex has always been a sure-fire cure for a headache for me.

- Better sleep. Having sex can help insomniacs fall asleep, and it's certainly more fun than counting sheep or keeping your partner awake as you toss and turn. Getting enough sleep carries its own health benefits, including healthy weight and blood pressure.

--Again true. I'm usually able to roll over and fall immediately asleep right after climax. Even when I'm alone in bed, "taking matters in hand" will usually help me fall asleep easily.

- Stress relief. Sex lowers both blood pressure and overall stress. In a study reported in the journal Biological Psychology, individuals who had intercourse performed better in high-stress situations like public speaking and verbal arithmetic.

--I almost always get a "all is right with the world" feeling directly after orgasm.

- Reduces prostate cancer risk. An Australian study, reported in the British Journal of Urology International, found that 20-something men who led healthy sex lives were less likely to develop prostate cancer later in life.

--So far, so good!

The Sexual Hell Test

Your result for The Sexual HELL Test...

HELL LEVEL 3

Raw score: 81%

There's a special place in Hell for you: the basement penthouse. You scored the nastiest possible score on the Sexual Hell Test. You have no sexual restraint whatsoever. You'll take pleasure however you can get it, and my guess is you get it a lot. If for some reason you don't right now, you will soon, as people in your category only tend to spiral down ever deeper into the abyss of carnality and delicious sin. Congratulations.


I, personally, think that this category is the best. Paradoxically enough, sexual liberation and indulgence can only bring you closer to purity.


AVOID: all but level 3 hellions like yourself. You wouldn't want to ruin anyone, now would you?

Take The Sexual HELL Test at HelloQuizzy

Let's Not Throw the Baby Out With the Bathwater

Most people who oppose prostitution say they are against it because they believe that prostitution inherently exploits women.

Setting aside the facts that not all prostitutes are women and the existence of high-dollar freelance call girls, it is true that most prostitutes are women and quite a good many of them are indeed exploited and abused.

I agree that steps must be taken to end such exploitation and abuse.

But I don't agree that prostitution is inherently exploitative, nor do I think the solution is to keep it illegal. Rather, I believe that legalizing it will bring it out into the open, where it will be easier to address the forms of exploitation and abuses common to sex work.

It's interesting to note that there are many legal occupations where exploitation and abuses of various kinds are common. I can guarantee you that many fast food workers, some factory workers, janitorial and cleaning staff, migrant workers, to cite a few examples, are often exploited and treated unfairly.

However, no one suggests that the only proper solution is to abolish the occupation altogether and make it illegal. It would be viewed as akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Rather, people work to improve conditions in such jobs, believing that exploitation is not inevitable.

Why should prostitution be any different? Oh, wait, it involves SEX! Prostitution is inherently exploitative because no matter how willing both parties are and no matter how much money the woman makes and no matter the conditions, they are not having sex for the "right" reasons, thus it is necessarily exploitative. Have I got that right?

Give me a break. Keeping prostitution illegal and wrapping sex up in a mystique has done nothing all these hundreds of years to protect those who are truly abused and exploited. Legalizing it, bringing it into the light of day, and rationally looking at ways to improve the conditions and status of sex workers, in the same way exploitation is addressed in other occupations, would be a more effective approach in my opinion.

Thoughts?

Mormons: Same-Sex Marriage vs. Polygamy

On Alternet recently, I browsed through an article, Mormon Homophobia: Up Close and Personal by Sheldon Rampton. Once again, I found myself responding to a comment that had veered off the point of the original article.

The original comment:

Individual Mormons changing is what changes the church

My sister follows Mormon doctrine to the extent that she bore 7 healthy children and is now, at age 74, grandmother to more than 20. She is the matriarch of this very large family. She is "Mrs. Mormon."

BUT she did not vote for the "Gay Marriage Ban" when it came up in Utah elections. As she expressed it, The problem in Utah is not gay marriage -- it's polygamy.

My response:

The Problem is Forced Marriage of Underage Girls, Not Polygamy, Per Se

Or should I say polygyny, because such Mormons only allow men to have more than one spouse and not the other way around as well.

It's not non-monogamous marriage that is even the problem among such Mormons. It's patriarchal, fundamentalists religion that compels underage girls to marry old men that's the problem.

It would still be as big of a problem if it was just ONE young girl being forced to marry just ONE old man.

So, the problem isn't monogamy vs non-monogamy, per se.

Indeed, the existence of polyamory, which is when both men and women may have multiple spouses, and is engaged in only by fully consenting adults shows that this is so.

Let's focus on the real root of the problem: fundamentalist patriarchal religion.

Your thoughts?

Should "Proper" Reasons For Having Sex Be Legislated For Consenting Adults?

While reading an article on Alternet, 9 Ways to Halt the Right Wing Culture Wars and Bring Sanity to Sexual Policy by David Rosen, I came upon a reactionary comment to the article that focused on prostitution, which wasn't even the main point of the article. This caused me to respond more to the comment than the article itself. Below follows the original comment, plus my response.

The original comment:

Do we really want to make pornography and prostitution more acceptable?

In a world where everyone had a fair share of resources, prostitution would not exist--it is the result of inequality and poverty. I'd much rather see a guaranteed minimum income, not decriminalization.

Sex (especially with someone you know and like) is great. But buying and selling it is sad.

My response:

Selling's Legal. Screwing is Legal. Why Isn't Selling Screwing Legal? -- George Carlin

Why do you think it's the government's place to legislate "proper" reasons for having sex? I'm guessing that you think the only "proper" reason to have sex is to express love for one's partner and that throwing laws at people having sex for other reasons is an effective way to handle it.

This is not only staggeringly naive, but it's an improper use of government power, plus a waste of their time and resources.

People have sex for all sorts of reasons -- to procreate, to express love, because they're horny, to relieve stress, and so on. And there's nothing wrong with any of those reasons.

There's also nothing inherently wrong with seeking sex from a paid sex worker, which is done for a variety of reasons as well: those who are unable to find a free partner because of unattractiveness, disability or whatever, those out of town away from their regular partners, those who are horny but don't want to or don't have the time to invest in a more serious relationship and don't care for the bar scene, those who want to try certain sex acts but their regular partner isn't interested, and so on.

Needless to say, sex workers should also have the right to use their bodies however they wish, even for profit.

The only interest the government has in the sex acts of private citizens is to ensure that any sex act that occurs is between fully CONSENTING ADULTS. As long at those conditions are met: consenting and adult, then the government needs to butt out. No consenting adult should have to have a "proper" reason to have sex.

I chose to address one of the two main reasons why people oppose legal prostitution. The most common reason is that opponents believe that all prostitutes are exploited and are forced to be prostitutes. While this is undoubtedly true in many case, it's obviously not true in all cases. Plus they ignore the fact that it's the abuse itself that is the problem, not the selling of sex per se, and that there are already laws a-plenty to address the root causes without prostitution itself having to be illegal to prosecute.

When the existence of high-class call girls and escort services are pointed out them, where it's obvious the choice of occupation was freely made and no exploitation is occurring, most opponents will shift to the second reason for their opposition, which is the reason I address here, that I believe is the core, though often unconscious, reason for their opposition.

That is, many opponents believe that there are strictly defined "proper" reasons for engaging in sex and those having sex for what they deem "improper" reasons, should be legally prohibited from doing so, even if those involved are fully consenting adults.

Your thoughts?

Ten Things Not to Say On a First Date?

While trawling the net for something to write about, I came upon an article "10 Things Not To Say On a First Date. Following below are the ten things, plus my comments about each point.

1. "My ex is crazy."

If a woman I just met told me this, my first thought would be to wonder if she wasn't a little bit crazy herself to get involved with an unbalanced person. There's plenty of time later on to talk about exes after you've gotten to know each other enough to know that the other isn't "off".

2. "I would like to get married and have kids asap."

I don't know about you, but that would send me running for the hills, post haste. But, perhaps it's a good thing to have that issue laid on the table right away, so we don't waste one another's time if we're of different minds on the subject.

3. "Who are you voting for?"

Most of the time, I'm just looking to get laid, so I avoid talking about potentially touchy subjects that might kill the deal before it even happens. As with the first point, there's plenty of time to talk about politics later on after you've gotten to know one another.

4. "Can you pay the check? I'm broke."

I can't imagine anyone being impressed with someone who gives the impression of being a cheapskate or a mooch.

5. "What's your favorite TV show?"

This one isn't so bad, even if it is a bit boring.

6. "Where did you go to school?"

This one is a variation of the "what do you do?" question. Remember, it's a date, not a job interview. You're there to have fun, not exchange resume highlights.

7. "Can I take your picture?"

Kind of creepy and stalker-ish. There's plenty of time for picture taking, which will happen spontaneously once you get to know one another better.

8. "I'm poly-(fill in the blank)"

This is one I don't agree with. I'm not monogamous and I let prospective new partners know that I'm a libertine from the get-go. If they're expecting a monogamous relationship and are not willing to budge on that point, it's better to know that right away so we don't waste one another's time and risk misunderstanding and hurt feelings.

9. "So I just got out of rehab."

Though it shouldn't be the first thing you tell a date, I'd not advise keeping this one to yourself for very long, especially if you've only recently kicked the habit. Those whose addictions are safely years in the past can of course, wait until you know one another pretty well before rattling down this particular skeleton from the closet.

10. "So ya wanna come back to my place?"

I usually get laid on the first date, as I'm usually looking for a friend with benefits or a one time deal. I'm getting too old to invest a lot of time in women who aren't on the same page with me, so I routinely break this "rule" as well. Of course, I tend to only choose women who are looking for the same thing I am, so I don't often have crossed wires about this issue.

So, there we have it. Your mileage may vary, of course, on the validity or lack thereof of my response to these "rules", but it's worked for me for years.

Bar Hookups

A recent Alternet article, The Thrill of the Bar Hookup by Josey Vogels recently posed the question:

What exactly do people get out of cruising for inebriated strangers in bars?

As one who has extensive experience with one-night stands, I commented on this article which follows below:

I Outgrew the Bar Scene

I used to do a lot of bar pickups when I was in college (drinking age was 18 then). As the author said, I wasn't looking for any meaningful relationships; I was just looking to get laid. But some of those one night stands turned into friends with benefits relationships and I met my ex-wife in a college bar.

But when I left college, I gave up drinking and also any desire to hang around drunks and spend time in smoky places. Thus, using bars to find new partners dropped off for me and now, I rarely enter a bar for any reason. And the older I got, the more important it became to avoid alcohol, so there is no chance of anything interfering with my "functionality".

However, the desire for the thrill of the hunt and the victory of conquest has never left me. Fortunately, however, I've found I'm able to make pickups wherever I go. Some favorite places are bookstores, the library, the supermarket, outdoor festivals, fairs, and flea markets, laundromats, and so on. Partners found in these places also yield a higher possibility than not to end in friends with benefits relationships. I prefer being sober and having sober partners, plus I tend to find more intelligent women, especially in bookstores and libraries, with whom I can also have a real conversation with.

Those readers who have hooked up for one-night stands in the past, feel free to share your experiences below.

Sometimes A Cigar is Just a Cigar

Once again, Alternet has provided me with blogging fodder. In the latest article, Caveman Sex: How Evolutionary Psych Pushes Sexist Stereotypes , the author makes the point:

The watered-down evolutionary psychology prevalent in pop culture enables some men to rationalize sexist double standards about relationships.

I found the article to be rather simplistic, so I made a comment, which is shown below:

I am one of those promiscuous males the author writes about. However, I don't consider myself "loutish", nor do I have sex with anyone who is not entirely willing.

I find the assertion that men like me are looking for the most fertile women to impregnate laughable at best. Believe me, I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in siring children. Rather, I take great pains to avoid doing so. In 30+ years of my active and varied sex life, I've managed to only sire one child -- and that was during the very brief time I was married.

Nor is my choice of partners dictated by what the media tells me I should find attractive -- I use ALL my senses when choosing partners, not just my eyes. I've been with women of all types: short, tall, fat, thin, in-between, stereotypically "beautiful", average, plain, and "homely". Essentially quite a few women between 18 and 65 are game to me. My ideal partner is open minded, intelligent, and, obviously has a healthy interest in sex.

Nor do I believe that women are necessarily "coy" and choosy. I've had several hundred lovers over the years and I think I'd have had a harder time finding willing women if the "coy" theory was uniformly true. I don't think women are any more naturally monogamous that men are, but rather, they've learned to be that way because they've traditionally been punished more severely for straying than men have been.

In conclusion, I'd say that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and that some people, male and female, are promiscuous simply because we like frequency and variety in our sex lives.

Monogamy Is Monotony

On Alternet this morning, I read an article, Why Relationship Sex is Boring, by Esther Perel, author of the book "Mating in Captivity". In this article, she makes the point:

The very things that nurture love -- comfort, stability, safety -- can extinguish sexual desire.

I pretty much agreed with what she had to say and my comment on the article follows below:

Monogamy is Monotony

I think the author pretty much hit the nail on the head.

I've found that once I get to know a partner completely and that there are no more surprises left, nothing new to learn about this woman, then boredom sets in and desire flies out the window and the sex becomes routine and mechanical. And all the sex books and new positions and new settings in the world don't change the fact that I'm having sex with the same old partner.

It's quite similar to what would happen if you decided to eat your favorite meal 3 meals a day, 365 days a year. What was once your favorite meal, quickly becomes "the same ol' thing", no longer anything special.

After a brief failed marriage in the 80s, I decided that marriage and monogamy were no longer for me, as it wouldn't be fair to me or to any woman I might marry. Since that time, my relationship/sex life is to have several "friends with benefits" relationships going concurrently, with the occasional one night stand thrown in for added variety. I live alone, maintaining my own space.

There's no domestic dailiness to kill the desire, living apart keeps us from knowing every small detail about one another, and having several relationships at once keeps excessive familiarity away longer. And when any one of these relationships runs its natural course(they typically run from one to five years), I tend to remain friends with them.

I only had the one child from the failed marriage and had no desire for more, so my life didn't upset the lives of children, as I've kept my relationship life separated from my role as a parent.

I can't advise anyone else how to conduct their lives, but I can say it works for me.

Religious Freedom Doesn't Mean the Right to Dictate to Others

Today, an Alternet article, Conservatives Push Hard for Gay Marriage Ban, discussed California's Prop. 8, which seeks to rescind the right to same-sex marriage in that state, focusing on efforts by religious fundamentalists to see Prop. 8 passed.

My comment to that article follows below:

In this article Chuck Colson said:

"If sexual freedom is the ultimate liberty, then you have to rewrite the Bill of Rights. This vote on whether we stop the gay marriage juggernaut in California is the Armageddon. We lose this -- we're going to lose in a lot of other ways, including freedom of religion."

My response to him is:

Sexual freedom is very important, as it directly relates to the right to privacy and the right of free association.

I would also advise Colson that religious freedom has two components: freedom OF religion and, no less important, freedom FROM religion. He has every right to practice his religion as he sees fit, but he and others have no right to impose any aspect of religion on others.

The basis for all state and federal laws regulating consensual adult activity are religious in origin. Civil laws regulating American marriage are a place where religious ideas about the "proper" form of intimate relationships have been enforced as "secular" law.

Marriage was a religious institution until the evolution of civil law. Now, we must question whether it would be best to offer everyone the right to marry, or does our constitutional commitment to religious freedom actually require that the government get out of the marriage business altogether?

The First Amendment requires both the disestablishment of religion and protection for the free exercise of religion, which includes all religions and the right not to practice religion as well. If marriage is based on religion, it too, should be disestablished, thus protecting the free exercise of sexuality.

Sexual freedom also has parallels with religious freedom. That is, we aren't born any particular religion that we cannot change -- we choose what, if any, religion we will practice and the right to do so is protected by the Constitution. Likewise, gays and lesbians shouldn't have to justify why they're homosexual in order to enjoy the same freedom in regards to sexual practices. Whether or not homosexuality is a "choice", it should have no bearing on their rights.

Sex Survey

This sex survey was lifted from the beautiful Chica-X.

1. What is the strangest thing you have ever inserted or seen inserted (in a sexual manner) in person?

It would have to be a PR-24 police baton that I would insert into a lover by the vaguely penis-shaped handle end.

2. Have you ever had sex anyone whose name started with a J?

Too many to count. My current primary lover's first name begins with a J, incidentally.

3. Have you ever been outside completely naked?

Of course. I would advise others wanting to do likewise to make sure not to do it during mosquito season, though.

4. Do you prefer music, TV, or other noise in the background when you have sex?

Music, preferably with a beat that approximates the rhythm of sex; slower for "making love", faster and heavier for good old fashioned fucking. I'm not fond on having a TV on when having sex, unless we're using a porn tape as inspiration for our activities.

5. Have you ever used ice for sexual purposes?

Sometimes -- it's amazing what ice does for nipples!

---

Feel free to provide your answers in the comment box.