This post was written anonymously and does not reflect the views of the Crasstalk Staff. Continue reading
sex
46 posts
Unless you’re a tragic figure, a la Andy Stitzer in The 40 Year-Old Virgin or committed to becoming a Nun, you’ve more than likely had a first sexual experience. Chances are, you are even less likely to have had it go smoothly. So without further adieu, I present my top five reasons why this first slice of paradise by the dashboard light, sucked. Continue reading
Oh my. I almost forgot Hump Day this week. What would you have done? OK, here are some random people I think are sexy. Forgive my lack of theme, but I am sure you will all come up with something. Same rules as always, no naughty bits.
Here’s a young, hot Richard Chamberlain.
And let’s go with some classic Lynda Carter.
Once again, a tip on photo sizing. When you do a google image search, if you click on medium on the left column you will get images that don’t take up the whole page. This will make it easier for the page to load and for readers to scroll down. You’re welcome.
Have a great Hump Day.
Currently there is a new book on Gandhi making its rounds on the internet review circuit, Joseph Lelyveld’s Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle with India
Here are some examples: “Outrage in India over new biography that depicts Gandhi as racist, bisexual” or “Outrage over claims of Mahatma Gandhi being bisexual.”
Interestingly, now, a number of articles are coming out about the reviews themselves in the very circular way such things work in cyberspace. The Times of India: “Outrage over reviews of new Gandhi book”; the Economic Times supplement: “Outrage over reviews of Joseph Lelyveld’s ‘Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle with India.”
The New York Times, where Lelyveld once held an elite position, just plain plays softball: “Appreciating Gandhi Through His Human Side.”
I will only discuss a couple of examples cited in the reviews and one from Google Book Previews (I am currently still waiting for the book to arrive ). While the book is still in the public eye, however, I want to say a few things about what I call the Cycle of Outrage that the book is being subjected to and offer examples of other books about Indian religious icons that have undergone this treatment. What can we expect to happen with Lelyveld’s contribution?
It seems inevitable that when you explore the human and especially the sexual lives of modern Hindu figures, you inevitably run into a shit storm disproportionate to the offering, especially from the religious right (sometimes referred to as Hindutva). The shit storm may amount to very little, like bad Amazon reviews, but it may take a darker turn and include vandalism and/or death threats. We will blame the internet, right-wing politicing, and mob mentality.
So here is some of the dirt on the book Great Soul. The author, Lelyveld, is a former executive editor of the New York Times, had a long career as a journalist and writer, and has lived and traveled throughout Asia and Africa. A 2005 overview of his career can be read here. Lelyveld draws primarily from Gandhi’s autobiography and journals, and from his own journalistic legwork in South Africa stretching back to the 1960s. Lelyveld revisits some of Gandhi’s old haunts as well as explores his enduring reputation there (a monument of Gandhi erected in Durban is contrasted to a McDonald’s restaurant built on top of a vegetarian restaurant he frequented).
Gandhi and Race
Lelyveld is accused of characterizing Gandhi as “racist.” The term is found three times in the book, most emphatically when describing his attitude towards Gandhi’s views of South Africans. He refers, for example, to a well known quote about Gandhi’s strong feelings on the “mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians” (just Google this phrase to see its extensive use). And while he does suggest that Gandhi’s language is racist, the sage’s controversial views on race have long been known, so this charge against Lelyveld seems a little unfair since this view is not unique to him. Outrage!
Gandhi, Vows, and Sex
Early on, Lelyveld hones in on Gandhi’s vow of brahmacharya, basically a Hindu vow of celibacy, and his subsequent struggles with it. Gandhi takes a particular approach to this vow that is inspired from his reading of the Bhagavad Gita – be detached from this world but remain engaged with it (that is, don’t run away to a cave or mountain top). 
The result is a politically active renunciant. It is the “struggles” as they are portrayed by Lelyveld and as they are (more importantly) filtered through the online reviews, that are primarily the source of the outrage.
Gandhi’s view of sex is presented as follows: “Gandhi held to a traditional Hindu idea that a man is weakened by any loss of semen–a view aspiring boxers and their trainers are sometimes said to share–and so for him his vows from the outset were all about discipline, about strength.” We also learn how he reprimanded his son for having sex with his wife (the son’s that is). Gandhi is quoted saying: “sex leads to a ‘criminal waste of precious energy’ that ought to be transmuted into ‘the highest form of energy for the benefit of society’.” OK!
The Wall Street Journal outlines a few of the juicy controversies in the book. Lelyveld discusses the “nightly cuddles” that 70 year old Gandhi had with his 17 year old niece while leading India’s independence movement. A “test” of his spiritual (brahmacharya) vow. Gandhi says of these experiences: “Despite my best efforts, the organ remained aroused. It was an altogether strange and shameful experience.” These episodes are also well known (e.g. Sudhir Kakar analyzed Gandhi’s “experiments” with young women in 1989).
I had not previously read about the Vaseline episode discussed in the WSJ. Cotton wool and a jar of petroleum jelly are linked to a portrait of Gandhi’s friend, the Jewish architect and bodybuilder named Hermann Kallenbach. Gandhi kept his photo on the mantle across from his bed. The cotton and Vaseline are a “constant reminder” of his friend. What does that mean? Maybe it is for an enema? Lelyveld asks. The unstated suggestion is that Gandhi might have masturbated to the photo of his friend. It is this passage that has generated the most controversy along with this and this. The reviews take this to mean that Lelyveld says Gandhi is bisexual, although it is mostly suggestive rather than explicit. And then there is the entourage of women who administered Gandhi’s daily massages at his sexy ashram. Now that is some brahmacharya Gandhi! Lelyveld seems to want to lead his readers in a number of possible directions, but never really makes any definitive statements on this “controversial” issue. The reviewers, however, go to town and the religious right follow right behind. This is how controversies are manufactured and people’s lives can get messed up. The book has already been banned in Gujarat and will likely get banned in Maharashtra. Book burnings will follow.
Other Book Controversies
There are precedents for the current Cycle of Outrage. I want to look briefly at three “controversial” books treating similarly revered Hindu figures. All of these books have been the subject of banning campaigns by the religious right. All the authors have been subjected to death threats and public ridicule. Book burnings and extensive vandalism have also ensued. In most cases the reaction is stirred by one or two controversial lines or footnotes by people with political axes to grind; like this fucker, who is responsible for Lelyveld’s troubles in Gujurat.
The first book was written by James Laine: Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India. He claimed, in a footnote, that Shivaji’s father was an illegitimate child born to a Muslim dancing girl. The library where Laine did his research was ransacked by a mob and workers there were badly injured. The case for banning the book went to the supreme court and only recently thrown out. Prior to this, there were calls to arrest Laine. He also received death threats.
To give you an idea of who Shivaji is to Hindus, especially in Maharashtra, there are currently plans underway to build his statue off the coast of India equivalent to the statue of liberty. Shivaji is a big fuckin’ deal!!
Another book is Paul Courtright’s Ganesa: Lord of Obstacles, Lord of Beginnings. This author received death threats and had his book banned because he psychoanalyzed a myth about the elephant god’s birth (in 2 out of 300 pages); something about his trunk representing a “flaccid” penis and being no threat to his father (Shiva). Not a stellar analysis to be sure, but reasons for threats, etc.? Maybe not. The book was initially published in the ’80s and circulated unnoticed until an Indian edition was to come out about a decade ago. That edition never got published because of right-wing outrage. Again, let’s blame the internet for this. Here is what went down in the author’s own words.
Finally, there is Jeffery Kripal’s book Kali’s Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna (1995). The book explores and analyzes the “mystical experiences” of the Bengali Saint Ramakrishna against a backdrop of repressed homosexual desire. Here is more than you ever could want to know about this book, its controversy, and the Ramakrishna movement.
The lesson? Write your books in the pre-internet age and/or make the controversial topics secondary to generic topics that few will bother to read. On second thought, that didn’t work well for Paul Courtright. However, keep this in mind: book burnings sell books.
So there you have it. We can expect that Lelyveld’s book will continue to get banned in India and he will likely receive death threats from a subsection of zealous right wing Hindus spurred to action by assholes like Modi who is, in turn, inspired by all the trite shit he reads in the Daily Mail or where ever. It doesn’t matter that Lelyveld may or may not have said the things that the reviews claim he did, in the manner that they claim he did (without nuance or context). It is all part of the Cycle of Outrage!
Stay in school kids. Keep reading and be sure to order your books through the Crass Amazon link!
On Friday, I received an e-mail from the pole dancing studio where I take classes notifying me that it was closing as of April 3. My heart sank a bit at the news. Not only because I’ll miss visiting that studio and the women who gathered there, but because of how much the space helped me.
While pole dancing may be seen as the latest workout du jour for just about anyone, including Jesus, it also provided (at least) one woman — me — with a way to find the dormant sexiness and awaken it.
Two years ago, I decided to sign up for Level 1 at the studio on a whim. I’d never done anything like pole dancing and after signing up, kept thinking, “Oh god, what the hell is my fat ass going to do on this fucking pole?!!”
Thankfully, that feeling quickly faded away. The studio space was small, which meant each class only had six women at a maximum. Each woman had their own story, some saw the class as a means of getting exercise, some wanted to learn how to pole dance for flirtation with their significant other, and then there were women like me — very shy, somewhat awkward, and convinced that they couldn’t be sexy if their life depended on it.
After the first class, I was hooked…and bruised in placed I’d never been bruised before. There was just something freeing about the experience. No one laughed at me if I couldn’t do the pole trick perfectly after 10 tries. Instead, there was constant encouragement from everyone.
From the freedom found in the studio, it seeped into my everyday life. Slowly but surely, I noticed myself buying flirtier underthings, thigh-high stockings, and shoes with a four-inch (or more) heel. I held my head a bit higher. My friends saw my confidence improving.
Since that first class, I went on to take a couple more and performed in the first “recital” held in the studio. (The above photo may or may not be of yours truly.) Until a knee injury forced me to slow down, I visited weekly to work out with a group of industry pole performers who frequented the studio. My range of motion is still great and as my instructor/friend Holladay once said, “You may not have a boyfriend now, but I’ll make you flexible enough to make people think you do!” Indeed she did.
Although I would be the first in admitting I still have many hurdles to get over before becoming fully happy with myself, taking classes at that studio and meeting some great people along the way has helped in removing many of those obstacles out of the way.
The Portland-based band, The Ravishers, recently released a video for their song, “Underachievers,” which includes scenes filmed at my favorite studio. One of my teachers, who I also count as one of my friends, is shown in studio scenes, too.
So long Primal Beginnings, and thank you for all you’ve done.
Sex is my hobby.
Not so much the having of it (lingering Catholic damage and a significant aversion to germs and off-spring killed any chance for promiscuity for me at an early age). But I am fascinated by the vast variety of ways humans have divined to get off. My “research” has taken me to some really interesting places and some really dark places, but all of it has been. . . rewarding.
My special interest is in pornography.
I’ve seen at least a few films from all genres that are not on-their-face disturbing (you know it when you hear about it) or illegal. To list just the kink genres alone would be a post in itself, so I will refrain. Remember Rule 34.
Let’s just say that I’ve done the leg work.
My pornographic life has seen its fair share of internal and external conflict. A common critique I receive (usually screamed at me after too many beers), particularly from my female friends, is that all porn exploits and degrades women; that there is no way the porn industry isn’t damaging the women participating and all women in general. I respect this opinion. I was once even persuaded by that opinion but as I have experienced more and branched out (way out) from the Vivid/Hustler/Playboy worlds of porn and seen some truly amazing (and H-O-T) work being done by smart women who are deeply committed to forwarding a feminist viewpoint in their work, I changed my mind. So, while I still agree that a significant portion of the business remains deeply misogynistic, I think it is an unfair and inaccurate picture of the entire industry.
I started this post thinking that I would make some recommendations about some excellent and incredibly hot work going on that you may not have heard of if your own pornographic life is restricted to X-Tube, pay-per-view, or trolling for whatever free genitals are bumping and grinding their way around the interwebz. But Lux Alptraum and the staff at Fleshbot (link is NSFW) have that covered and I cannot improve upon their work.
So instead I’d like to impart the some of the lessons I’ve learned about real-life sex after 10+ years (the beginning of my pornographic life was, technically speaking, illegal) of watching people have sex on camera.
Even if you are extremely porn-adverse, I think these lessons will translate. They are from the perspective of a straight woman (not on behalf all straight women). While I’d like to think they translate across orientations and genders, I don’t want to make any assumptions.
- Nobody looks “cute” with their ankles next to their ears. Even the hottest of porn stars (Bobbi Starr and Junior Stellano – links NSFW) look silly. Sex, even on-camera sex, is not about looking pretty. It’s about having a good time. The best porn, while still porn (meaning that the positions are inventive, acrobatic, and cheated to the camera), is about two people enjoying the shit out of each other. It is not about posing or faking it for the viewing audience. Your sex shouldn’t be either. Regardless of who you are fucking and how “hot” that person is, if they are blowing the top of your head off, they will not care what your thighs, stomach, or sweaty, red face looks like in that particular position (unless they are a total piece of shit). Getting someone off is way more of a turn-on than a perfectly posed and composed body (as if there is such a thing).
- Have a loose plan before you dive in. Believe it or not, porn, like any other film, has a script. That script mostly consists of a position-by-position breakdown. There are innumerable benefits to coming up with your own “script” for how exactly you are going to go about turning your partner into boneless puddle of goo. Not only does the anticipation kick the experience up about 100 notches, both of you will also feel more secure and prepared for what is about to come (pun intended). Surprises and spontaneity can be fun but they can also be disconcerting and doing it that way all the time can breed repetition and boredom. It also tends to remove an element of participation from the less spontaneous partner. Planning also helps remove any uncertainty about consent and help insure that no one feels overwhelmed, taken advantage of or for granted.
- Talk! Talk about your sex before you have it (the “script”)! Talk about your sex after you have it (see if the “script” was successful)! If it’s your thing, talk about the sex while you are having it! Good porn is extremely communicative. Maybe the actors aren’t exactly using SAT words but questions are asked and answered and the status updates are constant. As a female viewer, that is perhaps the hottest part of the entire viewing experience.
- Lastly, an orifice, is an orifice, is an orifice, is an orifice. From magazines, advertisements for bizarre products and services, and my own friends I get the sense that a LOT of people worry about about the appearance of their anuses and vaginas. While I won’t go so far as to say all that shit looks exactly the same (honestly, to me it does. I couldn’t pick my own vagina out of a line-up.) but essentially we are all working with the same stuff. The surprises are few. Also, not to be harsh about porn actors, but they are not the best actor-actors. I’m pretty good at catching nuances in facial expression and in all the porn I’ve watched, from all walks of porn life, I have never seen an actor show even the slightest sign of freaking out at the sight of a particular orifice. All I’ve seen, in all the time I’ve spent in the trenches, is a person who is just happy to be allowed to visit with a particular orifice for a while. So calm down and don’t feel like you HAVE to “bleach” or “rejuvenate” anything in order to join the party.
I hope this was illuminating for a lot of you and not too pedantic for the rest of you perverts (“pervert” is a term of endearment in sexxxy circles. I use it here with the utmost respect and affection.).
If you would like some porn recommendations and do not want to go to Fleshbot, ask away in the comments!
Sex. Kinky sex. And lots of it. Sometimes for days, sometimes for weeks. Heterosexuals, homosexuals, asexuals, transgendered, transvestites, and transsexuals. Incest, necrophilia, and hermaphrodite orgies. It seems, the only sexual deviants in the animal world are monogamists. Who knew? (Certainly not Cole Porter.)
Not too long ago, it was believed that, like humans, animals stuck to the old maxims of the birds and the bees, male and female. Boy, was that wrong! Homosexuality is rampant among animals such as male giraffes and lions. Female apes use tools to masturbate. Even sea snails join in the bestial fun with train-like orgies that can last for days. But, rest assure, “no matter how bizarre the behavior, there’s probably a reason to it”1. This begs the question, what is the purpose of sex if not for procreation? I plan to answer this and more in a series entitled: The Animal Kinkdom.
The Animal Kinkdom: Homosexuality
There are over 1500 species that engage in homosexual activity 3. It doesn’t matter where in the world, or what animal group, chances are it’s happening. More interestingly, it is met with little hostility and is in fact a common behavior among animals of status. If that doesn’t surprise you, let’s take a look at some specific examples of male homosexuality before penetrating a possible reason.
Male Giraffes are often caught canoodling across Africa in an overt sexual act dubbed “neck rubbing”1.
In the absence of females, the kings of the animal world affectionately kiss, hug, and caress their brothers. Sex is less frequent, but happens (perhaps after a lazy afternoon of eating fermented marula fruit)! Even Cheetahs form their own “members only” brotherhoods complete with benefits.
Does this seem somewhat standard so far? You must be wondering how exactly this is considered “kinky.” Well, it’s not. Not until now. Monkeys and apes take the kinky cake in this article. Hold on to your loins, this ride is about to get freaky.
Let’s begin with the ever inventive male Orangutang. These resourceful little fellows have a wincing trick up their sleeve – they can retract their penis, turning it into a penetrable cavity1. Yes, that’s what I said, a retractable penis. With opposable thumbs and fingers, playtime becomes sexy-time in no-time.
Anal sex, anyone? Though it is a less frequent behavior, there are a couple species who’ve “mastered the fine art of the back door”1. Normal social behavior such as grooming between Macaques quickly turns sexual often followed by anal penetration. The aptly named Big Horned Sheep also participates in backdoor dalliances, on rocky terrain no less!
“What about the birds?” asks a shocked Cole Porter. “There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks.” 3
Last, but certainly not least, is a dear friend of ours: Bed Bugs.
Male bed bugs (Cimex lectularius) are sexually attracted to any newly fed individual and this results in homosexual mounting. This occurs in heterosexual mounting by the traumatic insemination in which the male pierces the female abdomen with his needle- like penis. In homosexual mating this risks abdominal injuries as males lack the female counteradaptive spermalege structure. Males produce alarm pheromones to reduce such homosexual matings. 3
Yikes.
Now let’s visit the question of “why?” What is the purpose of homosexual behavior if it doesn’t lead to procreation? So far, there is no definitive explanation. At first thought, it seems to oppose the evolutionary imperative of continuing one’s genetic legacy. However, with deeper thought, that may not be the case. Speculation suggests it’s preparation and practice for the actual act of mating, which makes sense as females choose the best male with which to mate – a male skilled in impregnation will have higher odds of furthering their lineage. Further, as the act of sex leaves most animals vulnerable to attack, the more efficient the better. Other, more wild speculation, is that it helps regulate the population by providing a sexual release, or act as an outlet for those without partners. I guess this means the old adage is true: practice does make perfect!
In any case, homosexuality is rampant in the animal world; however, this isn’t the only sexual behavior that’s not reproductive. Next up on Animal Kinkdom: Masturbation.
Interested in seeing the full list of animals? Look here.
Sources:
1. Wild Sex. (Documentary) National Geographic. 2005.
2. List of animals displaying homosexual behavior. (2011, February 25). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 19:21, March 6, 2011, fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior&oldid=415920139
3. Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate. Owen, James. National Geographic News. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html)
BYU’s Brandon Davies, a 6’9″ 235-lb starting forward for the top five-ranked Cougars has been suspended for the remainder of the season for violating BYU’s strict Honor Code. Davies admitted to Brigham Young University officials that he and his girlfriend engaged in pre-marital sex. The suspension, announced Wednesday, will include the post-season conference and NCAA tournaments.
Davies had been averaging 11.2 points and 6.1 rebounds this year this for the Cougars and was a major force behind their 27-2 record and possible number-one seed in the tournament as well as a potential run to the Final Four. All that is in jeopardy now.
Thursday night, New Mexico dismantled the Cougars, 84-62, a possible sign of trouble to come for the suddenly undermanned BYU squad. Live by the Honor Code, die by the Honor Code.
“This is who we are, and most people that come to this school, hopefully all, understand that it is one of the reasons they come to BYU,” said Tom Holmoe, BYU’s Athletic Director, at a news conference following the suspension. “We understand that people across the country might think this is foreign to them, and might be shocked or surprised. But we deal with this quite often.”
The BYU Honor Code is a forbidding list of restrictions that every BYU student agrees to upon becoming a student. The Code applies to both Mormon and non-Mormon students.
“We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men,” the Code states. “If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things, the Honor Code states. It continues:
- Be honest
- Live a chaste and virtuous life
- Obey the law and all campus policies
- Use clean language, respect others
- Abstain from alcoholic beverages, tobacco, tea, coffee, and substance abuse
- Participate regularly in church services
- Observe the dress and grooming standards
- Encourage others in their commitment to comply with the Honor Code
Although it may seem Draconian, at least one observer of college ethics supports BYU’s handling of the situation. “I give the school credit,” Donald McCabe was quoted as saying in The Salt Lake City Tribune. McCabe is a professor of business and writer on issues affecting higher education. “They laid out their rules, they were violated and they stuck to their guns. The student was forewarned and he knew what the penalty would be, and he took his chances.”
While no definitive reports have yet surfaced as to how Davies was turned in to authorities, or even if he turned himself in, a variety of sources on Friday released the name of his girlfriend, Danica Mendivil, a volleyball player at Arizona State University, and like Davies, a native of Utah. Early reports indicated Mendivil might be pregnant, which her family has since denied.
Davies is part of a very small African-American contingent of blacks in the LDS church. As recently as 1978 the last formal bans were lifted against African-Americans who wanted to serve as bishops or in other LDS church leadership positions. Davies was born in Philadelphia and adopted by a white Mormon family who raised him in Provo as a member in good-standing of the LDS church.
While no hard data is available, church observers have said African-Americans comprise less than one percent of LDS church membership.
Image here.
Whether Davies’ punishment was more severe because of the interracial nature of his and Mendivil’s relationship will remain speculative, but this is the second major Honor Code violation in two years to rock BYU athletics.
In 2010, the Cougars’ all-time leading rusher Harvey Unga was kicked off the football team and withdrew from school for having a sexual relationship with Keilani Moeaki, a BYU women’s basketball player.
(Note: This is an article about some sexually explicit topics, so both this post and any sites to which I link may be considered textually NSFW.)
In the midst of the latest round of congressional attempts to criminalize abortion, the “right to choose” question has once again interjected itself into the national conversation. Does a woman have the right to choose what to do with her own pregnancy in her own body?
I’d wager that most of us here on Crosstalk would argue for a woman’s right to choose. As with the gay marriage debate, it would seem that many of us are uncomfortable with the idea of legislating morality, especially as it relates to sexuality (ironically, a classically Republican mindset ). But the “right to choose” question extends beyond the issue of abortion; for those in the poz (HIV-positive) community, a debate is raging over the ways they have sex and the necessity of “safe sex” measures.*
See, barebacking has made a comeback in the gay porn industry. Barebacking refers to sexual penetration–usually anal–without the use of a condom.” Barebacking was long a staple of gay sex, but when the AIDS crisis his America, the practice lost its glamor. Only recently has it come back into vogue, the latest thrill to seek for the most sexually adventurous (some would say careless) people. The gay community is split over whether this is a good or bad thing for the LGBT community at large. Many activists wish to require porn studios to include condom use in their feature films; after all, the best way to encourage safe sex and minimize the risk of STI transmission is by using a condom, and it’s irresponsible of some porn studios to continue to promote and profit off of bareback sex. On the other hand, proponents and producers of bareback pornography argue that porn is fantasy, not reality, and viewers understand the difference between the fantastical world that porn depicts and the realities of gay sex.
Along with the most recent rise in barebacking’s popularity has been the increasing prevalence of serosorting–sex between partners with the same STD status. A (relatively) high-profile example of this is Atlanta’s monthly Poz4Play parties, in which HIV-positive men congregate and have unregulated sex with each other. Condoms are offered, but not required; while patrons have to keep their clothes on in the space’s lobby and hallways, several private rooms are available for private, unmonitored sexual activity.
Serosorting isn’t just limited to those in the poz community, however; dating websites for people with specific STIs (such as herpes, HPV, and chlamydia) are growing increasingly popular with gay and straight singles looking to avoid the awkwardness and embarrassment that often comes with admitting one’s STD status to a disease-free partner. As you might imagine, some–but not all–of the couples matched up by these disease-specific sites eschew condom use. And for those who feel stigmatized by their STIs, it’s nice to meet people who share these problems and experiences; the burden of shame, at least between partners matched through these disease-specific websites, is lifted, and that fact alone makes the sex all the better. (A common acronym in poz personal ads is “UB2,” which stands for “you be too”–as in, “respondents must share my STI status.”)
The justification for bareback serosorting is that since both partners are already infected with a given disease, the supposed “risk” of infecting each other is rendered moot. And if people are going to bareback anyway–it’s common wisdom in the gay community that condom-free sex simply feels better, and it’s assumed that many sexually active members of the community actively search out opportunities for barebacking–then they might as well do it with those who share their disease status, so as to minimize risk to the broader (disease-free) gay community. Many “poz party” promoters emphasize this health-conscious aspect of their decision to promote serosorting:
For decades, the issue of HIV Status Disclosure was one of silence, confusion and doubt mainly created on the fear of hate, rejection and in some cases DEATH (murder or suicide) – that was in the 20th Century. Today, the 21st Century has opened the doors of opportunity, acceptance, communication, awareness and HOPE as HIV+ people (gay, straight, man, women, young or old) openly and willfully disclose their HIV Status to family, friends, loved ones, co workers and sex partners. Since the mid 1990’s, HIV Status Disclosure for both HIV+ and HIV-negative people continues to be an acceptable behavioral change that global society has understood to be vital in stopping the spread of HIV in it’s tracks. Without HIV testing and HIV Status Disclosure mankind can NOT physically break the cycle of new HIV transmissions – Serosort (HIV+ only) or Safe Sex Serosort ;(HIV+ 4 HIV+ or HIV- 4 HIV-).
So we can see how the issues of serosorting and barebacking are fraught with tension and disagreement over the limits of sexual freedom; should barebacking and HIV-positive pornography be legal? Who would be responsible for policing, say, mandatory condom use on gay porn sets? How could such requirements even be enforced in the first place? Would the policing of these kinds of sexual activities only push them underground, into dangerously unregulated situations? And is it right that, say, “bareback porn is given away as prizes at benefits for AIDS and other organizations”?
Add one more question to that unnerving list: what to do about “bug chasers“?
Bugchasing is a slang term for the practice of pursuing sex with HIV infected individuals in order to contract HIV. Bugchasers may seek HIV infection for a variety of reasons Bugchasers seek sexual partners who are HIV positive for the purpose of having unprotected sex and becoming HIV positive; giftgivers are HIV positive individuals who comply with the bugchaser’s efforts to become infected with HIV.
It’s difficult to avoid condemning the practice of bugchasing as reckless, dangerous, and just plain stupid. But should it be banned? Defenders of the practice argue that sexual activity between consenting adults should not and cannot be legislated. Moreover, some argue, it’s hypocritical to on the one hand protect gay men’s right to engage in sodomy and a woman’s right to choose whether or not she undergoes an abortion, and on the other hand seek to criminalize other consensual sexual behavior–namely, bugchasing and barebacking.
It’s a tricky question, and I’m not going to editorialize; in truth, I myself am still trying to figure out where I stand on the issue. But even though practices like serosorting and bugchasing may only affect a small percentage of the population, the questions they raise about sexual freedom and the legislation of sexual health seem more pertinent to the national conversation than ever.
Image via.
*Okay, so it seems as though some readers have taken issue with my comparing the decision to terminate an unwanted pregnancy with the choice to bareback or “bug chase.” I’m not attempting to equate the two at all. For one thing, I don’t think anyone ever “wants” to get an abortion; it’s an incredibly difficult and painful decision that many people (myself included) believe is up to the pregnant woman, as opposed to a bunch of politicians in Congress. But while some young gay men feel the need to “bug chase” in order to find shelter and/or community, many testimonies from “bug chasers” I’ve found online imply that the decision to do so is voluntary and in the pursuit of what they view as erotic pleasure.
Rather, I think both abortions and activities like “bug chasing”–and the legal debates that surround them–center around the same question: “Who is in charge of <i>my</i> body?” In other words, the question as to whether it’s justified for the government to intervene in people’s personal and/or sexual decisions is common to both of these “issues.” Now, you might make the argument that whereas an abortion is a solely personal decision, activities like “bug chasing” pose a potential social health hazard. I don’t think this viewpoint is invalid. Just because I think these two things both center around the same question doesn’t mean they must have the same answer.
In any rate, if you disagree with the analogy, then you can ignore it. It’s not central to my post; I suppose I simply felt the need to “justify” the inclusion of this topic on Crasstalk, as ridiculous as that might sound, and was therefore attempting to tie serosorting and “bug chasing” to other things that have been discussed on this blog. The rather “anything-goes” nature of Crasstalk where most any topic is welcome without attempting to justify its relevancy to the blog’s audience is still a bit new to me.
A recent chance encounter with an old friend led to nostalgic gossiping, as it often does. This included remembering an affair among former mutual colleagues, which prompted reflection. Not so much about the well-worn themes of “Why People Cheat?” – I’ve watched enough of that to think I get the various motivations. More specifically we wondered about the role of the third party, and how he or she fits in. How she or he thinks, and how she or he is viewed by others involved.
Assumptions
I want to separate out some of the common themes that come up when thinking about affairs. So I’d ask you to assume (or at least trust me about) three things:
- I’d like to take gender off the table, if that is ever possible. There are plenty of important and interesting gendered themes when discussing affairs, but that isn’t what captivates me in this particular case. In fact, it is relevant to this point that, with my former colleagues, the individual having the affair was the wife. Or, even more to the point, that it is not relevant.
- Assume that we do not need to care about the “injured” party. How the affair impacts that individual is off the table. This husband was an ass; and one could make a case that he simply didn’t care. You can imagine him as abusive or withdrawn or also cheating or whatever. I promise I’m not asking for this assumption so that we can feel sympathy for “home-wreckers,” but to get beyond thinking about affairs from the perspective of the other spouse, and try to make sense of the relationship between those involved in the affair.
- Assume that the two married individuals either can not or at least will not divorce. Whether this is due to religion, money, children. Again, it doesn’t matter what specifically the reason is, just that this is the circumstance. Long-term changes are unlikely.
The Third Party on the Third Party
So in this situation, what motivates the third party to be involved in such a scenario? If this were a friend, we would tend to tell them that this is simply not a good idea, wouldn’t we? Haven’t most of us had this conversation? Or, let’s be honest, listened to someone else have it with us? Certainly the individual could just be interested in short-term sex, but does that ever really work? (Have romantic comedies taught us nothing?) Are they holding out irrational hope for a future? In a short life, are they not worried that they are spending limited time and emotional capital on an ultimately unavailable partner? Is that the point?
The third party that I knew, I knew well, but not that well. He knew that this was a mistake but couldn’t pull himself out of it. He ignored other possible relationships because they might interfere with his availability. Ultimately, his motivations were not that different from any motivations for a relationship: he enjoyed the human contact, comfort, and energy that came from this woman. The long-term was too vague to interfere with the short-term glow that he had. And, don’t we all understand, the downsides were easily rationalized away. The highs of the roller coaster imprinting much more clearly than the lows.
The First Party on the Third Party
And this leads to what is particularly interesting to me. Given the above, how does this person having the affair rationalize it? Not rationalize what she or he is doing to the spouse, but what she or he is doing to the third party? In theory, this is someone that the first party has developed a strong emotional and physical bond with. A friend, a colleague, a lover. And yet, unlike the close friend who is saying “run away” this person does everything possible to pull the third party in closer. To actively limit the third party’s ability to grow and develop long-term meaningful relationships. I think of this in terms of spouses left behind during war as well. The spouse at home is lonely and needs support, but they must know that ultimately, even if the other spouse returns and never finds out, that in exchange for months of love and support, the paramour will receive nothing more than emotional pain. (If you just realized that this is the second time I’ve made a point that can be illustrated by a Natalie Portman film, bonus points to you.)
It is no new interpretation to say the story of Dracula is ultimately a story about sex. An old man’s thirst for the young that is so overpowering that it literally drains the life out of her. And it is true that there is a Vampiric quality to so many affairs. (And this is also why the apparently mostly-sexless Vampire-lead of Twilight is so stupid.) Perhaps the first party’s needs simply require fundamentally ignoring the life of the third party. Blocking it out. Having just finished Gary Shteyngart’s Super Sad Love Story – which, like all of his books, I do not recommend – the main (unmarried) character’s internal need to provide provide oral sex for his much younger girlfriend was viscerally representative. It is not alone.
But people are not all vampires; are not all narcissists. It can’t be that everyone in an affair simply lives this disjointed life, psychologically ignoring yet attempting to satisfy the third party. How does the first party explain away the incredibly difficult and untenable position they are placing this other person in, someone they care about, often deeply? Is this why, in fact, so few affairs are true “love affairs” and why so many involve other benefits for the third party?
Distance and benefit?
The old, profoundly lame, joke is that men don’t sleep with prostitutes for the sex, but to get them to leave. I wonder if there isn’t something slightly deeper occurring here. Perhaps, the going away actually stands for limiting emotional connection in a way that helps the man rationalize his ultimate lack of availability to the third party. The first party feels that affection is being shown in the only ways possible.
We see this in mistress or cicisbeo culture as well. Or in terms of “sleeping ones way to the top.” Or so many celebrity affairs that are so well-publicized. The married individual can not provide the standard promises of a relationship, so other forms of benefit are substituted. Benefits that the first party can rationalize as a potentially fair substitute for a real relationship, either explicitly or implicitly. And in these cases, the third party can also sleep a little more soundly (on those nights when he or she is alone), knowing that the benefits are either a signal of promise or at least something that makes it all explainable, worth it.
Equally Unattainable
And perhaps this is why so many affairs involve situations where both couples are married or equally unattainable. Or why our shared anecdotes reference uncommon yet re-occurring events – reunions, conferences, etc. In these situations, life frames the expectations so narrowly that no one can have them. Or at least have fewer of them. Both parties are in both roles or the time-frame is so limited that the impact on the other’s emotional life is inherently limited. It’s a vacation from life instead of a part of one’s life.
In the story of my colleagues, the third party ultimately moved to another job across the country. The practical distance gave him the emotional distance he needed. He started a new life, a new emotional life. He is married now. Happily, last I heard.