The Husband Swap

J recently read The Husband Swap by Louisa Leontiades. Because he isn't as into blogging, I decided to interview him about the book and type up his responses instead :)

The basic premise of the memoir: the author and her husband adventure into the world of open relationships and polyamory.

J says Leontiades' story is the classic "why you don't open up a struggling relationship" example. J sees through the author's description that there was very little wrong with the open relationship itself. Instead, the people within the relationship were not happy with each other and wanted different things leading to dramatic experiences.

Leontiades and her husband decide that they want to meet another couple to explore nonmonogamy with. The other couple they end up exploring with also struggles within their coupled relationship (serious mental health issues plague the other woman). J mentioned that it was really interesting to see the different relationship dynamics the author experiences with each man (her first husband and with the other man)- in the fashion of Arianne Cohen's The Sex Diaries Project, the author has more of a lovers relationship with her first husband and more of an aspirers relationship with the other man.

SPOILER ALERT: The author and her husband are not together at the end of the story. Both couples end up divorcing and actually "swapped partners." The author has been with the other man from the other couple, married for seven years, has children with him, and they have an open relationship. (Her ex husband and the other woman were also together for a little time.) J was quite shocked to read at the end that Leontiades and her new husband still have an open relationship, given all of the drama that the two couples went through together. Pretty interesting, yeah? It definitely speaks to the potential fluidity of relationships.

This story is a pretty dramatic example of open relationships. J doesn't see the story as a very positive representation of open relationships, but the author doesn't blame the relationship structure (she blames "messy" individuals). Leontiades gives a great deal of insight into her emotional world, which is helpful and insightful into the dynamics of her particular story. In fact, the story made J question if poly relationships can ever really work, as the story represented a pattern that he has seen between me and other women we have been in relation to (situations spiraling out of control between the women involved). (However, I have to say J in response: this is blaming the "failure" of poly relationships to the structure and not the individuals in relation to each other. To which I also say: I have been a "messy" individual myself, as you well know. And my internal world has become a lot cleaner in the past couple of years, and in the past year in particular!)

J doesn't know if he would recommend this story to others; it definitely is not for the poly/open faint-hearted, and probably not the best for someone just exploring open relationships (it sounds like it could scare people away! ha!). It also has little to no advice or how-to structure; it really is just a personal story. It is awesome to have another memoir out there about open relationship experiences (we both really love Jenny Block's Open) and we hope to read more and more as people have the courage to share so publicly their experiences.

Peyronie's Disease, Cock Sheaths, Swinging, & Sex IQ

"I ran into your blog online the other day after finding a few postings on DA.com.  My searching for these types of articles will become apparent by the end of the e-mail.  I realize you are not Dan Savage or whatever but thought I'd go ahead and give it a go.  Hell maybe it will give you an idea for a column.  If not all I did was waste some of my time by sending a e-mail into the net ether.
 

After looking at the postings and some of your replies I've got a question about a certain... ahem product that you seem to speak highly of.

I think it is called oxoballs cock extender sheath.  So I took a look at the website these are from, but that didn't really answer my unique circumstance/question and I don't think my doctor is going to be privy to the information I require. Here goes with a bit of story included....

I'm a happily married guy and I do everything to please my wife (toys, rope, clamps, riding crop, etc. etc.).  The amount of towels we need to put down before sex would suggest that she is having a good time, but I would love to see if the oxoballs would give me some of the extra length I'm looking for.  However, I'm hesitant to drop cash on something that might not fit on a curved penis.

Any thoughts on if the oxoballs would bend easily around a curved penis or is it quite rigid?...

Without getting into graphic pictures, etc. wikipedia provides a good overview of the kind of curvature I have (peyronie's disease).  Long story short over time the penis bends, which results in quite crappy side effects and some shortening of the penis.... And also there is no cure currently except some rather drastic and scary surgery (for the love of God! do not google that... you don't want to know).

I have been exploring the long term option of seeing if I might enjoy watching my wife have sex with other men / opening our relationship so she can get what she needs from time to time that I will be unable to physically give her.  Sad thoughts for me, but it could be a reality and it seems rather selfish for her not to pursue things.  We have already talked about this and are very open with our communication.  Right now we are still in the information gathering / talking stage, but we might give it a whirl at some point with the right guy. 

We also thought about swinging with another couple, but I have doubts about how other wives would react to a curved penis.  It works fine, feels good to her, and she comes like crazy.  However, visually it seems like it might be a shock and / or draw comments (sort of my nightmare scenario).  Also... would one bring up this issue before play starts?" 

From J:

The Oxballs brand cock sheaths are quite flexible.  To give you some indication of how flexible they are, it is quite easy to bend them completely back on themselves with just the force of one hand. I am quite confident that they will easily fit comfortably on even a VERY curvy penis. We have both the "Dude" and the "Gym Boy" models and they are both made of TPR Silicone blend which is basically just flexible silicone. The "Gym Boy" is fun because it is longer but the "Dude" is slightly thicker. If you are quite curvy, I would probably recommend starting with the "Dude" as it will be less likely to exacerbate your curvature since it is a bit shorter. 

Also, I just wanted to add in some information about swinging and swinging couples. Since we started playing with other couples over two years ago we have seen tremendous variety in sexual organs. Everyone has pretty uniquely shaped, colored, sized, et cetera parts. If you engage in more of the "progressive swinging", which is to go on a few dates with couples and get to know them first before playing, you may feel comfortable enough to hop into bed with those people knowing that they are not the kind of people who are going to make disparaging remarks about your unique cock. OR, you may feel comfortable simply telling them that you are a bit self-conscious about your curvy cock; my guess is that they will respond by providing some reassurance. I will tell you that I have personally struggled a lot with performance anxiety when swinging with other couples and I have found it really helpful to just put it out there before anything happens. I know this isn't really what you asked about but...I just wanted to give you my two cents.

From K:

I thought it made most sense to have J respond to your questions about cock sheaths, since he's the one who has actually used them :) As the recipient, I can tell you that being able to play with size is fun! However, if your wife is already pretty sensitive to size, make sure to warm up her pussy really well before trying to ram your cock + sheath inside. Both sheaths that J recommended definitely add girth, as well as length. The first number of times we played with them, we had to warm up really well, take things slow, and use a whole lot of lube. A big barrier for me, though, was mental- I looked at how big the sheath was and thought "No way that is going in me!" I was wrong, haha. Now that we have played with those toys many, many times, the mental barrier is no longer there and it takes less warm-up to get J's cock+sheath all the way in.

I really wanted to commend you for how unselfish you seem in considering your wife and her sexual needs. I think it is really amazing to hear that you would be willing to open up your relationship so that she is able to continue having intercourse with other people. 

You mentioned the possibility of you watching her with other men- does this turn you on? What are the goals of watching? Do you want to feel included or do you want to participate somehow? I only ask these questions because it seems important for you to know, as best you can, how you will feel watching your wife with someone else. (Of course, experiencing it can be something totally different. Proactive thinking and talking is the best you can do, and it sounds like you are engaging in that!) 

I also wanted to reiterate what J mentioned about bringing up your cock shape and sensitivities about it before playing with other people, especially in the context of swinging. My hope for you is that talking about it beforehand will alleviate your anxiety, because you will know before playing with someone whether or not they will be respectful, kind, and whether or not they are sexually/erotically intelligent. (Also, if you are able to have intercourse, enjoy other kinds of sex, and your wife has a good time, I am sure other women would be receptive to having sex with you.) In a traditional swinger space, I would bring it up once you have plans to play with another couple (I would say something like: "Yeah, this sounds really fun and hot! Let's do it! I do want to let you know that my cock curves quite a bit. I can totally have intercourse and my wife always has a good time, but I just wanted to let you know." This gives the other people a chance to respond before everyone is naked, and you a chance to relax. Getting turned on while anxious is almost impossible.) In a progressive swinger space, I think you would have ample opportunity and a lot of room to bring it up, whether it is during an email conversation or over your first date or two before things get hot. And, if anyone is rude or mean, you probably don't want to play with them anyway.

Lastly, it seems important to mention sexual/erotic intelligence. It sounds like you are quite able to have intercourse still, but are considering the possibility in the future that you may not be able to anymore. I know that depression and withdrawal from one's partner are common effects from Peyronie's disease; I'm sure it can feel very depressing to not be able to engage in a part of sex that feels central to many people. However, penile-vaginal sex doesn't have to be (and isn't in my book) the be-all-end-all of sexual experience. Oral sex, anal play, playing with hands, playing with toys, incorporating dirty talk and porn and any other kinks all count as "sex" in my book. (And it sounds like you two incorporate many accoutrements in your sex, so, yay!) Think about how you define "intimacy," too, and how you define physical intimacy. It doesn't need to only include penile-vaginal sex. Broadening your definition may help you fear the loss of penile-vaginal sex less, or at least help you remember that there is still a lot that you can engage in that is intimate and meaningful and fun. I don't want to discount your experience or minimize what you have gone through at all; but because sexual intelligence has been a really important part of what J and I have incorporated into our sex life, I wanted to be sure to talk about it here.

Good luck!!

Insatiable Wives, Hot Wives, and Cuckolds

Read this post on my new site, SexualityReclaimed!

***

J recently read David Ley's Insatiable Wives: The Women Who Stray and the Men Who Love Them. Because J is often busy with school and still wants to blog, we found a compromise: he read the book and I will recap our conversations about it! :-) You can consider this post co-written by the two of us.

First, let's get some concepts on the table. These are concepts that we are articulating; others may have different ideas about them.

When we talk about a "hot wife" we are referring to a woman in a partnered couple who has sexual encounters (sex is the primary focus of the encounter) with other men. The husband/primary male partner is highly turned on by his wife's/female partner's sexual escapades, and derives pleasure and arousal from her exercising her sexual autonomy and from the image/thought/knowledge of another man having sex with her. 

When we refer to a "cuckold" we are referring to a man that enjoys the dominance/submission power relationship between himself and his female partner. Often, the cuckold likes to be belittled, humiliated, or otherwise made to feel powerless. The female partner has sexual relationships with other men as a means to capitalize on this power dynamic. The male partner often derives pleasure and satisfaction from the power dynamic between himself and his partner.

Thus, from what we know, "cuckolding" is more about the power exchange and relationship (as in other kinds of BDSM relationships) while "hot wifing" often lacks this element. Many mainstream articles conflate these two ideas. A man may derive intense sexual satisfaction from his partner having independent sexual escapades, but be completely horrified to be humiliated. However, another may only enjoy such escapades if he is also humiliated, forced to "clean up" the woman after her sexual encounter, etc. 

Ley's Insatiable Wives discusses many topics related to nonmonogamy while it centers around vignettes of (heterosexual) couples who enjoy hot wifing as part of their relationship. Most couples he interviews have full open relationships, but only a few of the men actually take advantage of their ability to be with other partners. For most couples, the majority of the focus for their open relationship is on the woman's sexual adventures.

The most interesting points for J (and thus for us to talk about) included:

-His introduction includes his reasoning for writing the book. Many people think that men turned on by hot wifing are mentally unhealthy and that many relationships like this are unhealthy or unsustainable. Because Ley is a clinical psychologist, he wanted to research for himself whether these ideas are true; he saw it as imperative that he be able to understand the motivations and ideas around hot wifing as he would likely interact as some point with a patient who had experience with hot wifing or cuckolding. He found for himself that most couples he talked to did indeed positively capitalize on the hot wife fantasy and were in healthy relationships.

-He sees the hot wife fantasy as potentially an adaptation to being with one person long-term. The fantasy capitalizes on the "other," creating at once separateness and intense desire within the primary relationship (think of Perel's Mating in Captivity).

-Many couples found that they had to hide their hot wife lifestyles from both the swinger and poly communities because of misunderstandings and judgements from both communities. I am continually amazed at how the nonmonogamous community has so man subcultures within it, and how each subculture has tendencies to throw others under the mainstream bus. Some couples found that swinger friends took issue with the seemingly non-egalitarianism of their relationships, while some couples found that poly friends took issue with the focus on casual, recreational sex (versus intimate sex revolving around love).

-J found Ley to be surprisingly sex negative at times, as it seemed he had particular ideas in his mind about which things were "okay" and which things "crossed a line" with regards to sexual behaviors, agreements, and boundaries.

-While some of the couples Ley discusses have full open relationships, many of them are open more in theory. For some couples, it was difficult for the woman to manage the man having other partners (because of jealousy, insecurities, etc), so the man eventually stopped trying to have other partners. For some other couples, it was never okay for the man to have other partners. And for some other couples, the man decided that it was simply too much work to try to meet other women (again, the inequity in vanilla dating at play). So for many of the couples Ley interviewed, the man is monogamous while the woman is nonmonogamous (although some of the couples still engaged in coupled sexual activities with other couples). For all of the couples, this has worked out because the hot wife fantasy is so thrilling and has sustained the primary relationship and satisfied both partners. However, the inequity of many of the featured relationship structures was fascinating to both of us.

-J did not like how Ley's book meandered into topics of nonmonogamy because he did not seem to be particularly qualified to be writing on those. He researched hot wifing and cuckolding, and thus had material and knowledge to discuss those topics. Other issues, such as the swing culture in general, should have been left out.

-Ley gave many examples of individuals and couples who have faced persecution from employers, family, and society for indulging their hot wife fantasies. These examples gave us pause in thinking about our own relationship and practices, and how those will mesh with our desired future careers.

-We both loved his concluding paragraph. It resonated for us as it seems to relate to open relationships in general. I absolutely love the metaphor of walking over hot coals:

"One might suggest that these couples are playing with fire, a hot, green fire, whose flames are jealousy, envy, and possessiveness. Indeed, I think many, if not most, people would be unable to play with these flames as successfully and burn-free as some of these couples manage. But, these couples may be like the people who walk across hot coals, and find that so long as they keep moving, the coals do not transmit enough heat to burn them. Pursuit of sexuality outside a marriage, through cuckoldry or hotwifing, is not inherently unhealthy. These couples can be successful, so long as they keep moving, keep communicating, maintain a healthy relationship, and acknowledge those flames of jealousy and envy as cues and signals, not as obstacles. There is nothing different in this from any other relationship. The things these couples do to remain healthy are the same things any couple should do. Health in relationships is determined not by what a couple does together, but how they communicate with each other, how they treat each other, and how they work together to maintain a functioning, mutually beneficial relationship. Communication, freedom, support, and mutual regard are the key components to any healthy relationship, regardless of sexual behaviors."

Poly: Orientation or Identity?

Read this on my new site, SexualityReclaimed!

***

J and I had a lively conversation about whether poly was an identity or orientation sparked by Dan Savage's recent column responding to someone who identified as "a poly." Dan is adamant that poly is a relationship structure, and that you choose to have a poly relationship; no one is "a poly" according to Dan. He says that if you have a preference for poly it can be overcome, because it is simply a preference and thus requires a simple decision. We disagree, to say the least. Of course poly is a relationship structure, but it can be much more than that for many people (in our opinion). (We both contributed to this post, by the way!)

What makes an identity versus an orientation? Here are some thoughts we had from our very long conversation about it:

-An orientation seems like an immutable, innate characteristic someone is born with. (We're still thinking about this one. Sexual orientation, for example, is often thought of as something you are born with, but my experience alone makes me question this. Was I always bisexual, since I was born? I don't feel like I "chose" that orientation, but that I discovered it. Sexual orientation is also often described as fluid... So this one is confusing!)

-An identity seems like something you can choose based on an orientation, or something that you choose based on a group or culture you are a part of. Being part of different cultures or groups can mean you identify with those groups. Maybe you identify as a nerd, a foodie, or a runner.

-It definitely seems like some people "orient" poly. They express feeling like they have felt poly all their lives. J and some other people we have met fall more into this camp. J expresses that he felt a lot of dissonance with monogamy for most of his dating life, and it feels much more natural now in an open/poly relationship. He could never go back to monogamy because it just feels so wrong for him.

-Other people (like K) seem to choose poly as an identity based on ideas and culture. I (K) don't feel innately poly, even though I don't think I could ever be monogamous again (just to make our conversation a little more puzzling). I identify more with with the culture and ideas and values of polyamory and so I identify in this way.

-Something we also talked about was whether humans are "blank slates" with regards to their preferences/orientations for polyamory or monogamy. As J asked, if I don't feel innately poly, do I feel innately monogamous? My answer is No. So do some come into this world "pre-wired" for one or the other? Are some people more heavily socialized for one or the other? (Nature versus nurture?) One of my ideas is that humans have an innate capacity to love multiple people, and that our social and cultural values around monogamy is what shapes our brains to understand that you can only have one romantic love at a time. I think I may have just been hit a little harder by all of that socialization, because even though I logically agree with poly values and hold them as my own, I have a lot of gut-level reactions that run counter to those values.

-It seems like it would make sense that just as gender or sexual orientation could be fluid throughout someone's life, that someone's relationship preferences could also be fluid throughout their life. Maybe for two years you prefer monogamy and then later prefer a poly structure. Similarly, it seems like within the open or poly community there is a spectrum of feelings on identity or orientation. Someone may be in a poly relationship because they feel like they are innately poly and simply could not operate romantically any other way, and someone else may choose to live a poly lifestyle even though all of their deeper-seated/right brain reactions make it difficult because of monogamy norms and socialization.

-Part of what has helped me make these distinctions is the ease in which J and other people we have met express their poly selves. Jealousy comes up, but it's very rarely debilitating for people who "orient" poly. Poly principles are more easily believed and adhered to, rather than having to experience specific situations and people and having to get comfortable with each new thing. I feel like I have to do a lot more internal work to have a similar outward expression of poly, like I am having to rewire my right brain to match up with my left.

"Unhooked" Review

Wow. There are just so many things about this book that warrant a 1-star review.  I just finished "Unhooked" by Laura Sessions Stepp and it was absolutely awful.  Below are some of the many many things that I did not like about the book.

1) Sensationalist Reporting: This book is obviously nothing more than an attempt by the author to create a book that sells.  She has tons of stories that are so clearly the exception rather than the norm but she suggests that these stories reflect on an entire culture.

2) Poor Study Design and over-generalizations: The author uses a "Case-Series" study design in which the author talks to less than 100 woman about their personal as well as these women's friends' experiences.  She then suggests that this data is reflective of the entire population of college youth in the current generation.  The author interviews almost entirely woman in the "Greek" or "Sorority" life and then suggests that these woman are reflective of the entire college woman's population. 

3) Incredible Bias while trying to paint a picture of "objective" research: The author begins the book by stating that she will merely be reporting on the "hookup" culture in an unbiased way.  However, the author then proceeds to use very judgmental language such as, my favorite line, "Hookups which are, by definition, self-centered and selfish [. . .]."

4) Finally, one particular theme in the book that I found to be absolutely ridiculous is the author's idea that people involved in the "hookup culture" are being so impacted that they will no longer want what she refers to as "real relationships."  The author then interviews many women who were previously involved in the "hookup culture" who have met boys and are now involved in these so called "real relationships."  The contradiction in this seems to blatantly obvious but it apparently escaped the author and editors of this book.

In summary, don't bother reading this book.  It is offensive and the research is limited to such a tiny class of people that there is very little to glean about the actual sexual culture of today's youth.

Oprah On Sex- Ugh!

From my recent read of "America's War on Sex" by Dr. Marty Klein I became inspired to check out some of the things that he mentioned in the book.  The first one that I decided to check out was his statement that Dr. Phil and Oprah hate sex.  I was pretty surprised since K had mentioned that Oprah has had Violet Blue on her show before to talk about pornography and erotica.  However, I checked it out and these were the disturbing articles that I found that show that Oprah and Dr. Phil do indeed have a very limited understanding of what is "appropriate" and "normal" sexual expression.

For a brief summary of this issue I encourage you to read a short article by Dr. Klein titled, "What Oprah and Dr. Phil Don't Understand about Sex."  Here is the link: http://www.martyklein.com/what-oprah-dr-phil-dont-understand-about-sex/.  It is filled with hysterical and enraging quotes like the brief excerpt below points out:

"When it comes to sex, Oprah believes that men are like ATMs–ready to go 24 hours a day, rain or shine. When she recently read mail from viewers complaining about their husbands’ lack of interest, she was stunned–”Hard to believe,” she said. “We thought, you know, men always wanted it.” Dr. Phil also finds it hard to believe. When confronted by Robert, who doesn’t want sex with his wife, Phil says “it’s just not natural that you’re just laying there thinking about work or something. What is it you don’t like about” sex? And to Rod, whose wife felt sexually deprived, Phil demanded “are you some kind of weirdo?”

Now, here are some links that my own research on Oprah's website revealed.  Keep these links in mind when you are talking to women like your Mom that may idolize Oprah; just remember that some of their views about sexuality and "appropriate" sexual expression may have been shaped by her show.

Article 1:

Oprah on Open Marriage: http://www.oprah.com/relationships/Do-Open-Marriages-Work/1.  This article was written by a contributing writer to Oprah's website.  It is, in my mind, a very poorly written, one-sided argument about why Open Marriages are bad and, even more, why they actually aren't "marriage" at all. 

Some of the more disturbing quotes from this article are: 

"I must confess, every time I type the words "good open marriage," my fingers twitch. These words feel oxymoronic."

"By the end of my research, I firmly believed that open marriage is merely an excuse for getting away with behaving self-indulgently and recklessly. In my book Prince Harming Syndrome, any man who wants an open marriage is what I call a Prince Harming. Prince Harming is someone who does not make his partner feel safe, calm, secure, confident—and the idea of an open marriage does not leave me feeling that way."  

The second quote personally makes me cringe because I can't believe there are people out there who think that it is their partner's job to make them feel "safe, calm, secure, [and] confident."  A person that needs all of these things are what I think Dan Savage would describe as "not in good working order."

What I found most disturbing about this particular article was the layout.  The first section was titled, "What's good about open marriage."  The second section was titled, "What's bad about open marriage."  The third section was titled, "What's #$@%^! about open marriage."  You may realize that the third section has exactly the number of characters needed to spell FUCKED.  So, it is broken down to "the good, the bad, and the FUCKED."  That doesn't seem very balanced. . . this layout reflects a very unbalanced attack on open marriage so I guess it is appropriate. 

Article 2:

http://www.oprah.com/relationships/The-Negative-Effects-of-Porn.  This is just a brief excerpt from Rabbi Shmuley.  He hates porn. Check it out!  My personal opinion on Shmuley's conclusions is that this man has clearly not watched a lot of porn OR he has experienced considerably different effects than most of the 50 million people in the U.S. who regularly watch porn.

Article 3:

http://www.oprah.com/relationships/MaleFemale-Friendships.  Ugh. I just had to put this on here to point out some rules that I hope you are all following ;-) Besides the fact that this article is extremely heteronormative, it is messed up in so many other ways too!  There is so much to dislike!

The following is an excerpt from the article:

• You can't go out to late night dinners together. You can have lunch together in a public place, but you should not order alcoholic beverages. "The embers of attraction really can grow in situations like that, and suddenly it's not so innocent, it's not just friendship anymore," Rabbi Shmuley says.
• You can't take long drives or long flights with the other person, even if it's for work. "Even if you have to work with a colleague [of the opposite sex], there are still certain boundaries you need to preserve," he says.
• You cannot place yourself in any situation where romance can grow. "Romance grows when people are alone; romance grows when people tell secrets," Rabbi Shmuley says.
• You can't share secrets with a platonic male or female friend that you don't share with your spouse. "Because then you're sharing an exclusivity with a member of the opposite sex that you're not with your partner, and that can lead to a big no-no," he says.
• You should not be friends with ex-lovers.

How well I personally did with the rules:

1) Broken.

2) WTF? Even for work. . . haha. I hope I never have to work with a colleague of the opposite sex.  If I do, I will just explain to my employer that I need to take a separate flight so that I am not on a flight with her.  Maybe we should have sex-segregated work places, flights, cars, buildings, schools. . . OR, maybe Rabbi Shmuley should just recognize that people who want to be intimate with others will be intimate regardless of the arbitrary rules that he develops to help keep people from developing "inappropriate" friendships with people of the opposite sex.

3) Broken.

4) OH NO! It can lead to a "big no-no."

5) Broken.

"America's War on Sex" Book Review

This is J writing. . . finally! It has been so long since I have written a post but K told me that I have three book reports to write and they were all due yesterday.  Oops. Now that I am on vacation I am trying to catch up on all the books that I put off reading while I was in school.  My next blog post will be about “Gay, Straight and the Reason Why” by Simon LeVay which is a book that explores a lot of the research that has been conducted into sexual orientation.  However, the first book that I read this summer was “America’s War on Sex” by Marty Klein; it was published in 2006, before “Sexual Intelligence.”

“America’s War on Sex” was essentially a summary of the immense discomfort that our culture experiences in regards to sex and how that discomfort manifests in an attack on sex and sexual expression.  He covers a variety of topics relating to sex and sexuality such as: sex education (with a focus on abstinence-only education programs), pornography, gay marriage, swing clubs, abortion and reproductive rights, and mass media and censoring.  The book is a sort of A-Z of every way in which the right is attempting to limit your sexual expression and sexual freedom.  Dr. Klein makes no attempt to hide his disdain for right wing leaders like George W. Bush, Rick Santorum, Jerry Falwell and others who he sees as responsible for attacking a citizen’s right to freely express themselves sexually without interference from the government.

The main theme of the book seemed to be that regardless of what your own level of comfort is with someone else’s sexuality, this is America and people should have the right to express themselves freely and openly so long as they are not harming others.  This closely dovetails with an important point in the book, which is that those who are not at ease with their own sexuality see attacks on their way of life everywhere – in the media, on billboards, in sex education programs, in the mere existence of pornography, and in books like “Fifty Shades of Gray.”  Because some people are so uncomfortable with the fact that they are sexual beings, they are unable to simply recognize and then dismiss those parts of the culture that are sexual; they must seek to control and limit the sexual expression of others in an attempt to protect themselves from what they see as a “sexual onslaught” in which they are being constantly attacked.  Dr. Klein sees this need to control the sexuality of others by limiting their rights to free sexual expression by watching pornography, going to strip clubs, et cetera as distinctly “un-American.”  After all, part of living in a pluralistic society means tolerating those with different views and expressions than you. 

I personally think that Dr. Klein did an excellent job of explaining how the law and especially the U.S. Supreme Court shape our sexual culture through their interpretation of the First Amendment.  The foreword to the book was written by the president of the ACLU and specifically commended Dr. Klein for the excellent job that he did covering how the law is involved in shaping what sort of sexual expression is permissible and where it is permissible.  One thing that I think that he somewhat glossed over is the fact that while the Supreme Court has been the most protective branch of government in terms of allowing people the right to sexual expression (even if what they have done has been pretty limited) they are essentially the last resort; these sorts of cases in which a person is not being permitted to express themselves freely only make it to the Supreme Court because of laws that were passed by legislatures and signed into law by governors or presidents.  If we convince our elected officials to not give into the pressure placed on them by those who are too fragile to handle other people’s sexual expression, the Supreme Court would not have to “put it’s foot down” in order to protect our First Amendment rights.  For example, there is currently a circuit-split (when two circuit courts rule on the same issue in different ways) regarding whether a state may pass a law that makes it illegal to sell sex toys.  Texas and Alabama have both passed laws making the sale of sex toys illegal.  The 11^th Circuit struck down the Texas law finding that it was unconstitutional but the 5^th Circuit upheld Alabama’s law finding that it was reasonable.  You can read more about this issue here if you are interested: http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2008/02/a-circuit-split.html The bottom-line is that this case only matters because states like Alabama and Texas are bothering to pass these laws that then call into question whether or not a person has a constitutionally protected right to buy sex toys or not; if state’s would not pass these ridiculous laws then it wouldn’t matter whether you had a constitutional right to buy a sex toy.

Another important point from this book is the extreme misinformation that is proffered by those uncomfortable with sex and sexuality in their attempt to limit the sexual expression and freedom of others.  He discusses the immense quantity of evidence that has been put forward against abstinence-only education and the fact that the right continues to tout abstinence-only education as the only effective means of preventing pregnancy and disease. Dr. Klein cites a figure that abstinence fails 88% of the time; he gets this from the fact that 88% of those people making an “abstinence-until-marriage pledge” will have sex before they are married.  Furthermore, those breaking the pledge are statistically less likely to use safe and effective forms of contraception and/or to use the contraception properly.  Another interesting piece of misinformation that Dr. Klein refers to is the idea that pornography causes violence or sexual assault; peer-reviewed studies tend to show the exact opposite which is that access to pornography reduces the number of sexual assaults in a community.  The book is loaded with misinformation commonly volunteered by the right as well as citations to peer-reviewed studies that refute this misinformation.

The last really important point that I got from the book is the way that the “war on sex” has been framed by those warring against sex and sexual expression.  It is framed, according to Dr. Klein, as an “us versus them” battle in which the “us” are the “righteous crusaders” who are uncomfortable with sex set out to save the community from the “them” who are perverts who do things like watch pornography, go to strip clubs, swing with their neighbors, and teach their children about contraception – you know who you are ;-)  This framing has the effect of making this small but vocal minority seem as if they have the moral high-ground which makes those people who consume pornography, go to strip clubs, swing, et cetera refuse to speak up and stand up for themselves since they are afraid of being attacked and smeared by those in this small minority.  One of my favorite examples from this section of the book was about a populated place that had many residents as well as strip clubs.  When the area became incorporated one of the first acts of the new city council was to pass zoning laws making it illegal for the strip clubs to continue to operate in their city.  In this decision the city council framed those that went to the strip clubs as “them” – perverts coming from other places to go to the strip clubs – but Dr. Klein asks the question “Who did this city council think were keeping these strip clubs in business? Probably the people who lived within a few miles of the clubs.” 

While the book was a bit disheartening because it reminded me of all of the ways in which sexual expression is limited and about the constant attack that sexual expression and freedom is under, I ultimately think it is a worthwhile read.  I think it is important to be knowledgeable about the constant attack on sexuality and sexual expression so that we can defend our right to express ourselves sexually in ways that are not unfairly limited by the government.

Virginity Definition Update

As J and I were talking today on our way to the gym, he helped me with my definition of virginity. He ascribes to Dan Savage's point of view on virginity: that you can be a vaginal sex virgin, an oral sex virgin, an anal sex virgin, an S/M virgin, a D/S virgin, a "kink" virgin, etc. According to J, if someone told him that s/he was a "virgin" he would automatically ask some more questions to get at what exactly that means. What have you done/tried? What haven't you done/tried? How do you feel like a virgin?

Part of my discussion from my post yesterday was concerned with demystifying virginity, making it part of normal human growth and transition. Practically, though, I like J's understanding of virginity better. In fact, it makes the idea of sex more exciting in a way: I have done X, Y, and Z, and I haven't tried A, B, and C. It also allows for a nuanced understanding of what virginity is, and that it can take many more forms than just penetration that breaks the mystical hymen.

Judgements

J and I have noticed a couple of related odd trends among some people that we have talked to in the "open relationship" community.

There seems to be a tendency for some open folks in general to look down at people in monogamous relationships, and also a tendency for people in polyamorous or polyfidelitous relationships to look down at people in open relationships who have more "casual" ties to their other partners.


The first tendency and trend is weird to me, because up until six months ago, I had lived a life of serial monogamy. I know what our society, media, families, and religious institutions teach in terms of what a healthy relationship is (monogamous, long-term, etc), and I remember not questioning any of that. (J, however, had questioned these ideas). I don't think most people will question the issue of monogamy unless there is some catalyst that requires them to think about it. I do not think that I (or anyone else for that matter) am in a position to judge our friends and family in monogamous relationships for how they form their relationships. As long as relationships are healthy and satisfying, it doesn't matter what form they take. I can still judge other relationships in the sense that I can differentiate the values that those relationships are based on, but I don't think I have the right to form and hold harsh opinions about other relationships.


The second tendency and trend is frustrating on another level. People in open relationships are already a minority in our society. Why must we divide into even smaller groups? Just because people in polyamorous relationships have different boundaries and rules than people who "swing" with their partners, and different boundaries and rules than people who have a group of friends with benefits, does not mean that any one group of people is "right" or "wrong." They are just different. And again, as long as relationships are healthy and satisfying, it doesn't matter what kind of boundaries and rules dictate the form open relationships take.


Part of my excitement about building a community of sexy friends is the opening up of a quiet minority group. I feel proud of where J and I are, and I am proud of all of our friends that have gone through similar conversations to be where they are with their relationships. I feel aligned with almost everyone we have met who are also in open relationships. Even if other people have very different rules and boundaries for themselves and their relationships, I respect and value learning about other open relationship styles and teaching others about ours. I in turn expect respect from others, and it disturbs me when I hear and see other people in open relationships de-value and disrespect what we, or others, do because it doesn't exactly match up with what they do.


These trends remind me of how broader minority groups in our society sometimes team up and sometimes don't, and how it always makes more sense to me for minority groups to align themselves even if there aren't the same exact values at play. It just doesn't make sense to me for people in open relationships who identify as one way or another, or who have different rules and boundaries, to focus on our differences versus our similarities and strengths as a community.

Helen Fisher TED Talk on Romantic Love

Alright, so I know that I (J) have not posted anything on this blog for over a month, but that doesn't mean that I am not constantly thinking about open relationships and non-monogamy. I just don't have time to post my thoughts as often as I would like.  

I often listen to and read articles that present opposing viewpoints in order to deconstruct the messages and remind myself of the societal messages that reinforced my societally expected monogamous life for 22+ years before embarking on the difficult but rewarding journey of creating an open relationship.

I recently watched a TED Talk by Helen Fisher that stirred up a powerful emotional response because I was just so taken aback by her point of view.  The TED Talk is available at http://www.ted.com/talks/helen_fisher_tells_us_why_we_love_cheat.html and I strongly encourage anyway who follows this blog to go and watch the TED Talk because it is fascinating. It is fascinating not because of the ideas that Ms. Fisher presents but rather the manner in which she presents her ideas.

To get the most out of the remainder of this post you will almost certainly need to watch Ms. Fisher's TED Talk. Ok, so now that you have watched that. . . here we go. I am going to list off the problems that I see with Ms. Fisher's TED Talk.

1) Ms. Fisher is an ANTHROPOLOGIST. I expect an anthropologist to more carefully consider the way that science is impacted by cultural ideals and values. It seems to me that Helen Fisher set out to prove specific things rather than conducting research and then drawing conclusions based on what she found. Helen Fisher seems to want to prove that 1) romantic love exists, and 2) it exists as a means of bonding a man and a woman who can then have sex and raise a child. Ms. Fisher's entire TED Talk merely reinforces long-believed scientific theories about men and women and relationships and the reasons for them and does not add anything new to this discussion or present the information in a new or thoughtful way. Even if Ms. Fisher is not a cultural anthropologist (I don't know what kind of anthropologist she is) I would at least expect her to acknowledge the impact that her beliefs and that society at large can have on the research that she chooses to conduct and the conclusions that she ultimately draws from the research she conducts.

2) Adultery. Ms. Fisher makes a comment about how women often ask her, "Why is it that so many more men than women are adulterous?" Ms. Fisher responds to this comment by saying (paraphrasing here), "Who is that these people think that men cheat with? It is simple math that if all these men are cheating then there must be just as many women cheating. It is simple math!" I find this comment disturbing in several ways. First, it is not simple math that just because a man cheats there is necessarily a woman cheating.  Many men may be cheating with the same women who are cheating or perhaps men are cheating on their partners with women who are not cheating (either because they are single or in open relationships) or, perhaps, men are cheating with other men! It is disappointing to me that Helen Fisher so greatly simplified and misused statistics because I expect more from a professional researcher.  

3) Orgasm and Oxytocin: Ms. Fisher has a brief discussion about the fact that men and women experience a release of oxytocin into their bodies upon orgasm. This is absolutely true and there is significant evidence to back her up on this point. Her conclusion from this is that men and women are not really capable of having casual sexual experiences with people because the release of oxytocin will cause a bonding whether or not they are prepared for that. I think I can safely say to our readers. . . SERIOUSLY?!?! K & I have experienced lots of very deep and meaningful sex and we have also experienced amazing orgasms where we would not be distraught/depressed if we never saw the person again. Once again, this seems like an attempt by Helen Fisher to draw a conclusion that supports her worldview rather than questioning all of the evidence that suggests that the release of oxytocin really is not a very powerful bonding agent (think for example of the high rate of divorce, people who have casual sex partners, swingers, etc.). What Ms. Fisher ultimately concludes from her discussion about the release of oxytocin being associated with orgasm is that it is meant to bond a man and woman together so that they are able to raise a child. However, Ms. Fisher acknowledges in a separate point in her TED Talk that the strong initial feelings of being in a new relationship (often called New Relationship Energy) usually fades in 1-2 years. Considering a gestation period of 9 months for humans, it hardly seems that the release of oxytocin being associated with orgasm supports the idea that men and women will be bonded long enough to raise a child at least in terms of how we view child-rearing today. (Generally it is not considered sufficient for a man to help raise his child until the child is 3-15 months old before leaving.) I think this is yet another point in the talk where Helen Fisher takes solid scientific data and uses it to support her view about relationships and the "purpose" of romantic love.

4) The part of the TED Talk that inspired this entire blog post is the part that follows. However, I must preface this part with a little information about Helen Fisher's theory of love. Fisher believes that humans have three different brain systems at play when people are in love: lust, romantic love, and attachment. She explains that the three brain systems are not always aligned and that it is possible for people to feel intense feelings in one or more areas for different people at the same time: "You can feel deep attachment to a long-term partner while you feel intense romantic feelings for someone else, while you feel a sex drive for people unrelated to these other partners. In short we are capable of loving more than one person at a time. In fact, you can lie in bed at night and swing between deep feelings of attachment to one person to deep feelings of romantic love for someone else. In short, I don't think that we are an animal that was built to be happy. We are an animal that was built to reproduce." Ahhh! Oh no, Helen Fisher, WHAT HAPPENED?! I thought Fisher was about to make a profound breakthrough about how our society doesn't support our natural urges, but instead, she concludes that we are not meant to be happy! Instead of questioning the societal norms that make this unacceptable, she concludes that humans were not "built to be happy." It is because of this statement that I argue that Ms. Fisher is caught in a paradigm; she has conducted scientific research that causes her to conclude that humans are capable of loving multiple people at the same time but instead of questioning the societal norms that make this unacceptable she merely concludes that humans were not built to be happy. Why does Ms. Fisher (an anthropologist) so quickly jump to the conclusion that simply because humans are capable of loving multiple people, they are also not meant to be happy?  I would like to use the research that Ms. Fisher has gathered which has caused her to conclude that humans are capable of loving more than one person and then ask the question, "If we are capable of loving more than one person at a time, then why is it so frowned upon by society to act on those urges?"

I think that Ms. Fisher's TED Talk is a perfect example of the sort of scientific research that perpetuates a paradigm rather than questioning the underlying rationales of the paradigm. This statement is somewhat circular in the sense that a paradigm is exactly that; it is the underlying framework that merely perpetuates our worldview rather than questioning it. The research that Ms. Fisher does and the conclusions that she draws from her research is clearly influenced by her deeply held beliefs about romantic love and the goal of attaining long-term one-man-one-woman relationships.

Casual vs. “Intimate” Sex. Also- Performance Issues

I was inspired to write this post after speaking with a close “sexy friend” about what we were looking for in the lifestyle.  We were discussing the distinction between sex that is strictly based on a physical connection to the other person versus sex in which the people have some sort of connection besides a strictly physical connection.  I am trying very hard as I write this to not use language that seems to judge the inherent worth of these two different scenarios as I think that both can be great so long as it is clearly communicated and understood by all involved partners.  However, what I currently want out of this sort of “lifestyle” is both friendship and sex and I do not feel that I would ever be likely to enjoy a strictly physical encounter nearly as much as I would enjoy an encounter with someone that I was both physically and mentally attracted to.

A major part of sex for me is about pleasuring the person that I am with and while I would still get enjoyment out of pleasuring another person whether or not I knew them well, I do not think that it would be as satisfying for me if I did not know (or plan to know) them intimately.  Another aspect of sex for me is about the increased intimacy that I am able to share with people who I like; the great part about “sexy friends” is that I am able to know them both as friends and as lovers rather than one or the other.  This gives me the added flexibility of being able to share myself intimately with people that I already know and like.

Also necessary to include in this post is that K and I have only had one casual encounter with a couple and two casual encounters with singles; the point being that we do not have a lot of experience with “casual” sex.  Of these experiences the one with the couple was quite satisfying although we were slightly disappointed that nothing more ever became of something that seemed to be a good thing for all involved.  With the singles the sex felt good physically but it was certainly not “intimate” in the sense that it was merely about having one fun (and safe) evening with other consenting adults but it never materialized into anything more.  There was nothing “wrong” with this sex it just was not anything besides a good physical feeling with new and attractive people. 

I do not want to come across as criticizing “casual” sex as most of our experiences have actually been quite satisfying, but I guess what I am trying to get at is, sex is just sex unless there is something else underlying the sex that adds to the feelings associated with sex.  It is completely fine to have “casual” sex but for me I have to recognize that it may not live up to my expectations when it is with someone that I do not know very well and it is not going to be an ongoing thing.  My theory on this is. . . why end a good thing just because it is not new?!  The trade off in decreased excitement and newness is well worth the benefits of the increased satisfaction that I get from giving and receiving pleasure from someone that I am able to connect with as a friend.

Lastly I would like to discuss some performance issues that I have had since beginning our open relationship.  The reason that I want to discuss performance issues in this post is because the only time I have ever experienced performance issues is with a brand new non-vanilla partner. 

As a healthy, 22 year old that does not drink, performance issues were a completely foreign concept to me prior to this lifestyle. L OK, truth be told, I am not THAT sad about this because I recognize that it is a normal and natural part of being involved with new people that I (sometimes) hardly know.

When we were first beginning to open up our relationship I was very turned-on by the thought of being with new partners but when it came right down to doing stuff with other people, I did not feel turned on at all.  I didn’t feel turned-off at all; I just was not sexually aroused AT ALL.  When we began playing for the very first time with our first couple, I was sexually aroused but only so long as I was with K.  (Aside: This other woman, like all the women we play with, was absolutely gorgeous and it is an empirical fact that she is attractive J).  However, despite how attractive this woman was, I just did not feel sexually aroused.

Performance issues have since come up several times but 1) I have gotten better about knowing what works for me in order to avoid them and 2) they are almost always the first or second time that we play with a new couple.  I still cannot explain exactly why performance issues arise because I feel comfortable, happy, excited, and relaxed but I know that sometimes things just do not work!

I have since come to learn that performance issues in “the lifestyle” are quite common for beginners.  (Thankfully I was told this by the man from the couple that we played with our very first night we did anything and he reassured me that it was totally normal and common- THANK YOU J!) I can not explain why performance issues come up or how to avoid them but Dan Savage has actually referred to some studies in which it has been found that men, despite the common conception, are actually more comfortable with partners they know whereas women are able to be very sexually aroused by new partners. 

A related reason I think that performance issues have come up for me in “the lifestyle” is because the transition from a casual evening and conversation to sex is often very abrupt and. . . somewhat awkward.  This is quite different than “vanilla” sex in which things happen slowly and the transition from hugging to kissing to making out to touching to. . . well you get the idea, happens more slowly and naturally.  This is not to say that I do not like the abrupt transition from conversation to sex because, I actually do; we all got together for a reason and we may as well play at some point assuming that everyone is on-board and thinks that it would be fun and fulfilling.  However, this abrupt transition has the potential to bring up performance issues for me because it does not give me the chance to become slowly aroused in a more “natural” way. 

To wrap up, casual and intimate sex both have pros and cons and we have had great experiences with both types.  However, if given the option I would choose a lasting and meaningful friendship that also includes sex because it allows me to have 1) variety, 2) great friendships, 3) less/no performance issues, and 4) ongoing good things!

Labels

There are so many labels that we have come across in the past few months, and have found that even the use of labels is difficult because everyone has their own interpretation of what the label means. With many definitions it is necessary to ask clarifying follow-up questions in order to determine exactly what a label like “open relationship,” “polyamorous,” or “swinger” means to someone.

To identify as “swingers” felt very comfortable for us when we first opened up our relationship because it was a way of exploring physical connections without having to consider the implications of creating meaningful emotional attachments with others. Swinging felt very comfortable to me (K) when we first started researching non-monogamous possibilities. It still fits within the paradigm of monogamy; you have your life partner, girlfriend, boyfriend, whoever. But there is only one other person you are with. You are not encouraged to develop feelings or emotional connections with other “playmates.” It is a highly social activity, with several websites and clubs dedicated to “the Lifestyle.” Older swingers we have met subscribe to this “traditional” view of swinging: sex and feelings are kept very separate as very distinct expressions. Sex is about physical attraction, desire, and fulfillment. Feelings of love and caring are only for one’s primary partner. Many “swingers” who are around our age reject this notion, and are instead much more fulfilled by good or best friends who they can occasionally (or frequently) hop in the sack with.

For a little while, both J and I felt we may identify closer to the polyamorous end of the open relationship spectrum because of the rejection of keeping feelings totally separate. However, neither of us wants to make major life decisions with anyone else. We have been building our relationship for five years together, and adding someone else into the mix of “where should we go to school? Where should we move? What kind of house should we buy? What about finances and paying back loans?” seems too complicated. It seems too complicated to us to provide other partners with the level of commitment and sacrifice that we have provided each other. And neither of us is particularly sure we would even want that. That being said, we both agree that feelings develop over time, and that it would only be natural to develop intimacy and deep feelings of love and caring for people we consider to be good friends who we also share physical connection with. It is not solely because we share a physical connection with others but rather that we have developed a meaningful friendship with these people over time. We liken that expectation to how we even love our vanilla friends; why is that so different if sex is involved?

J and I opened up our relationship with the intention of getting away from monogamy, and not to be exclusive with other people. This is the idea of polyfidelity: having a monogamous relationship with other people. We see polyfidelity working for us under specific circumstances: to diminish the possibility of contracting an STI, or perhaps because of an inability for geographic reasons to meet new people.

We realized over time that the term “open relationship” works best to describe what we do. This term gives us the flexibility to clearly identify ourselves as being outside of the traditional realm of monogamy without being instantly prejudged or have people make unwarranted assumptions about what that term means for us. (I will pause here to say that K and I are both aware that there are certain connotations and misconceptions associated with the term “open relationship” – we know this because K and I both had these ideas. They are things like “people in an open relationship are just fooling around,” “they just want sex without a ‘relationship,’” and “they just don’t want to actually commit to each other.”) By telling people we are in an open relationship we have the flexibility to explain exactly what that term means to us and how we approach non-monogamy. We do like getting to know and care for people and we want to develop long-lasting and meaningful relationships with others; however, just like in “vanilla” dating, we do not actively seek these things out but rather allow them to happen naturally. We want to be open to the idea of caring for and loving other people merely because we feel it is only natural that these sorts of feelings could develop over time with the right people. We feel very fortunate to have met many other incredible, intelligent, and attractive people near our own age who are also involved in open relationships who feel very similarly to us about the idea that feelings can and likely will develop over time.

Lastly K and I want to draw a distinction between life partners and loving other people. K and I are in love with one another and we have also made a decision to spend our life together because we are both in love with each other and because we are compatible in terms of our future goals, the way we like to live, travel, spend money, work, play, etc. K and I have spent 5 years building a meaningful and loving relationship with one another and we love one another, so even if we love other people, we are not looking to replace each other with a new life partner because we feel there is more to a “life partnership” than merely being in love; it is a combination of love, compatibility, and time.

“Play” Versus “Sex"

When K and I first entered this “lifestyle” I was not fond of the term “play” because I felt that it minimized the sexual experience and made it seem exceedingly casual and light. I think that my perspective of the term and my perspective of sex have simultaneously shifted to the point where the term “play” is an acceptable term to describe what it is that we do when we are intimate with other couples. 

What I mean by saying that my “perspective of sex has shifted” is that K and I have deconstructed the idea that sex is sacred (more about this idea coming soon) and have come to understand sex as just a natural part of the human experience: it is just another way that people connect and share themselves with those that they want to be intimate with. We feel that sex is just as natural and normal as sharing a meal or a good conversation with another human being. This is not to say that we are not highly selective about who we play with but we do not attach any significant emotional meaning to sex solely because it is “sex;” we attach meaning to sex that is important to us for other reasons such as: doing it with people we care about, people we respect, people we want to be closer with and share an intimate physical experience with, and people we love. We recognize that sex can be very emotional or very meaningless depending on the relationship that accompanies the physical act of sex but we do not think of sex as inherently “special” or “emotional.” Sex to us is merely a physical act that can have as much or as little meaning attached as is appropriate for the level of relationship that we have constructed with those who we share the experience with.

K and I decided to include this aside about the term “play” versus “sex” because we recently met a couple who seemed put off by our use of the term “play.” When I was discussing writing this post with K she shared an interesting insight with me about her understanding of the term “play” and why she has come to adopt that term to describe what we do. For her, the term at first seemed superficial but she now feels that the term is appropriate because it is more encompassing of a wide range of sexual behavior that can range from light and fun to deep and emotional. The term “play” encompasses, for K, sex that is light and casual and sex that is emotional and profound, depending on the relationship that has been established that underlies the sex. She also explained that “play” more broadly is a fundamental part of the human experience and that it is something that everyone can relate to and does throughout their whole lives. Play is merely a time to interact and connect and have fun with other human beings and “play” that involves sex between consenting adults is the same way!

For both K and I, we now prefer the term “play” because it is a unique term that does not come pre-loaded with preconceived ideas about what sex is.  “Play” for us is “sex” but it is encompassing of a wide array of sexual activity ranging from meaningful sex to casual and light sex.