Tag Archives: sexuality

That Shit’s Complicated Too

I got a great comment last year from a male reader about how I was putting too much emphasis on the male orgasm as the symbol of a successful sexual outing. I was using it to illustrate why hook ups with strangers might be more satisfying for men then women, which might be one (of many) reasons that women don’t pursue casual sex as much they could.

I get your point that, for random hookups, men are more likely to ‘get off’ than women. That doesn’t take into account the fact that, for men, orgasm isn’t the only marker of a quality sexual experience, probably because it’s so easy to achieve. And honestly, myself and other men I know have come early in unsatisfying sexual experiences just to get it over with.”

I saw that Claire Dederer at the Atlantic fell into a similar trap recently when she wrote about the complexity and “messiness” of female desire. While I definitely don’t dispute the mess, I’ve come around to disputing the claim that it’s messy only for women. Messy in different ways, perhaps, but I think we do dudes a disservice if we reduce their sexual satisfaction to the act of orgasm. More on that at Role/Reboot.


Related Post: That time I reviewed hookup app Bang with Friends

Related Post: “Women can get sex anytime they want!” and other things people say

Leave a comment

Filed under Gender, Media, Republished!, Sex

Top 5 Gender-y Stories of 2013

The year of the open letter. The year of twerking. The year of Lean In. The year of Melissa Harris-Perry. 2013, kids, dammmmn.

For Role/Reboot this week, I recapped the stories that dominated our feeds, walls, front-pages, and dinner table conversations. From Miley to #fasttailedgirls, what the hell happened this year?


P.S. I’m really sorry we have to revisit Miley. Again.

Related Post: My original post on Miley

Related Post: I read Lean In so you don’t have to.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gender, Republished!

Dating like a feminist

Last week I joined Molly and Brian on Vocalo’s Feminist Wednesdays to talk about dating while feminist. As usual, it was a blast and a half. What part should gender roles play in modern dating? How much should we rely on traditional who-does-what? Should we just mimic the gays? They seem able to figure this out without pointing at genitalia as the reason one person should or shouldn’t buy the other person dinner…

Listen away!

Related Post: Dating should not be a meal ticket.

Related Post: Why online dating is hard for guys.


Filed under Gender

165 pounds and up? Don’t rely on Plan B.

In case you missed it during the eat-a-thon, football-a-thon, couch-sitting-a-thon that was Thanksgiving, last week I wrote about Mother Jones’ investigation of the efficacy of Plan B (aka emergency contraception aka The Morning After Pill) for women over 165 pounds. The European equivalent (chemically identical, branded differently) has recently added a warning that the pill loses potency for women over 165 pounds and is ineffective for women over 176 pounds.

I found this revelation to be extremely disturbing. Frankly, both the scientific details (i.e. why 176 pounds? Is this BMI related? Can I just take two pills instead?) and legal intricacies (i.e. What kind of testing does the FDA require? What is a legally acceptable fail rate? When are you required to disclose this information?) of this announcement are over my head.

From an ethical perspective, however, it seems clear to me that when 25% of women (and 50% of black women, FYI) take a pill that advertises itself as emergency contraception, they deserve to know that it is not designed to work for them. All contraception has a fail rate, duh, but this is bigger than that. Some people are trying to make this an issue about promiscuity, or the politics of obesity, but they’re missing a point. The drug is already out there, the women already take it, they are already over 165 pounds. None of those facts change, so the only question on the table is whether there should be a big sticker on the box that says, “Over 165 pounds? Please consult your doctor before taking Plan B.” As a sexually active woman over 176 pounds, I would really appreciate that.


Related Post: What if an 18-year-old female pop star talked about her safe sex habits?

Related Post: Female figures are, by definition, feminine.

Leave a comment

Filed under Body Image, Politics, Really Good Writing by Other People, Republished!, Sex

A Christian and an Atheist Talk about Sex: Watch What Happens!

I am SO excited about this post. A few weeks ago, I wrote about what counts as “real sex.” I find that our traditional definition, (penis in vagina) is pretty limiting and sometimes damaging because it a) is insulting to queer people who have sex in non-p-in-v ways, b) reinforces a pleasure disparity (because the “main act” is something that most women don’t orgasm from) c) perpetuates the mythic importance of female virginity d) contributes to rape culture by deeming certain forms of sexual violence “more traumatic” than others.

A blogger named Jonalyn politely pointed out that she had a few issues with my piece, and when we started to tweet-debate the topic, she suggested we take our conversation to a bigger stage. Her site, Soulation, is a hub for people who want to explore Christianity compassionately and thoughtfully. We recorded a video debate that was supposed to last for 15 minutes and went on for 40 because we were having THE BEST TIME. I’m not kidding, it was by far the most fun I had that week.


It may shock you to hear that I am not, in fact, a Christian (I know, SO shocking). When Jonalyn reached out about recording our conversation, I was initially wary of jumping into unfamiliar waters where our perspectives would inevitably boil down to a clash of “sex is for fun!” vs. “sex is for God!” I am pleased to say that we both played nicely and used our listening skills to try to find common ground. Surprisingly, there was lots of it! 

It’s not often that I get the opportunity to debate this stuff with someone who approaches it with the same level of enthusiasm that I have for sex talk and approaches from a different angle with different core assumptions. Such a treat!

Get more of Jonalyn on Twitter!

Related Post: Talkin’ harassment on Vocalo.

Related Post: Can you be married and sexist? Yep.


Filed under Sex

Can Sex Positivity Be Negative?

Last week, Kelly Rose Pflug-Back wrote for Huffington Post about how the mantra of sex-positive feminism has actually been negative for her. She, like many people, had suffered sexual trauma, and the attitude that she perceived as “just have some more orgasms! orgasms for everyone! woohoo! sex!” wasn’t helping her. In fact, it made her feel guilty for not being a “good” feminist.

I really struggled with her essay, especially the portion that suggested we default to treating our partners like survivors:

Given the alarming prevalence of rape and sexual violence in our society, perhaps all of us, regardless of gender, should begin with the assumption that all female-bodied partners we have (and, realistically, quite a few of our male-bodied partners as well) are survivors.

To me, assuming your partners are survivors (or would like to be treated as such) deprives them of the agency to tell/show you how they’d like to be treated. I know that I, personally, do not want to be treated like a survivor, and I would resent someone who approached me with that attitude.

That said, Pflug-Back’s essay has prompted a ton of really interesting conversations about the limitations of sex-positive feminism and the shortcomings of the movement’s messaging. Check out more thoughts on what sex-positivity really means (hint: does not equal orgasm counting) in my new Role/Reboot piece.



Related Post: Body positive NSFW tumblr

Related Post: Body Positivity doesn’t mean throwing skinny women under the bus


Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Republished!, Sex

Yeah, but is that “real” sex?

I have the most fun writing when there’s a convergence of conversations and sources that all seem to be pointing towards the same issue. When things that I’m reading overlap with things that I’m watching and all of that overlaps with things that I’m talking about, it feels like a little lightning storm in my brain; write about this!

That’s what happened this week for my new Role/Reboot essay about the idea of what kind of sex “counts.” When I say “counts,” I mean it in the literal sense (as in, “Do I have to up my number?”) and in the theoretical sense (as in, is considered meaningful/important). As I read and watched and talked, it became obvious how slippery a slope this question becomes.

The queer lens always helps clarify things for me because it removes traditional gender expectations from the equation. It is so obvious that gay people have sex without a penis entering a vagina. Can we come up with a legitimate reason not to apply the same logic to straight people? I can’t.

Read the essay, but I’ll cut to the chase now: why do we care if it’s “real” sex or not?


Related Post: Why your number is not particularly important to me

Related Post: Guest Post: I don’t know whether you’re a slut or a player

1 Comment

Filed under Gender, Republished!, Sex

Why We Need More Sex on TV*

*Well, a certain kind of sex. Or rather, certain kinds of sex. We do not need more scantily clad women. We do not need more blowjob jokes. We do not need more titstaring. We need more variety. That goes for sexual preference (and we’re getting there, slowly), and it goes for sex acts, fetishes, and preferences. We need more female pleasure. We need more honest conversation. We nee more intimacy. We need more consent. We need more reciprocity.

It’s impossible for me to imagine a future in which there is less sex on TV than there is today. Go ahead, try it. Do you really see the world getting less explicit? Less raunchy? I cannot. If, then, we take as the baseline assumption that sex on TV will exist in the same quantities as it does now, if not more, then the question of what kind of sex is shown becomes really, really important. This week on Role/Reboot, I wrote specifically about cunnilingus on TV and why we need more of it.


I believe that the only way (only feasible way, anyhow) to respond to hypersexualized content is to contextualize it. In a perfect world, I wish kids wouldn’t see porn until they’ve had a chance to develop their own imaginations and sexual styles. But, given that they will and there’s not much I can do to stop it, context is key. They need to know that it isn’t real, that it’s not what they should expect when they actually get naked with someone. It’s a performance, just like Pirates of the Caribbean. There’s a director, lighting technicians, a script, and extreme stunts. Will this conversation be hella awkward? Yup.

I feel similarly about non-pornographic television. If our average programming is going to be hypersexual (which it is, because it sells), then let’s democratize it. Let’s show adult sexuality that is based on equality, consent, pleasure and respect. And that includes cunnilingus!

Related Post: Why is going down so frequently a one way street? 

Related Post: The best two minutes of TV about oral sex (Louie CK)

Leave a comment

Filed under Body Image, Gender, Hollywood, Media, Republished!, Sex


Do feelings make sex better? Yes.*

*Yes, for me. How the hell do I know what makes sex good for you? 

*Yes, but which feelings?

*Yes, but it’s a matter of degrees.

*No? Oh my bad, friend, sorry for making assumptions.

With the help of Facebook contributors and all you lovelies who emailed me with essays about your sexual hang-ups (thanks for that!) I wrote about the venn diagram of good sex and feelings this week at Role/Reboot. Sorry-not-sorry Mom and Dad!


Related Post: How to choose porn with a partner that is not heinously misogynist and embarassing

Related Post:


Filed under Republished!, Sex

Want to see my underwear?

Hey look, it’s a pile of my underwear!

photo (20)

It’s a pile of underwear that is now in the trash! Twist! Didn’t see that coming, did you?

I am moving, which I have not done in several years, and consequently I’m throwing away alllll kinds of shiz that I really don’t need. First on the list, socks with holes. Second on the list, underwear that I never wear. Like, literally, never. Okay, maybe a few times, a long time ago, when I thought I was being soooo cool. Now I am old and I don’t care about being cool anymore and I don’t really enjoy the sensation of lace all up around my junk. So, this week, for Role/Reboot I wrote about throwing out my lingerie.

Key Note: This is not, in any way, shape, or form, an admonishment that you should throw away your underwear. I mean, knock yourself out if you’re feeling my vibes, but this is a piece about owning your own sexuality, in whatever wardrobe feels most authentic to yourself. What I learned, in this experiment, is that the picture above is decidedly not me.


Related Post: Why is it okay to put 16-year-olds in lingerie ads? Yeah… it’s really not.

Related Post: Women think they’re too fat to exercise. 

1 Comment

Filed under Gender, Republished!, Sex