In Praise of Two Authors

Happy New Year, blog followers! I haven't posted in a little while. I've been dealing with the stress of the holidays (that are finally over!), and am just getting over the flu. So I haven't been feeling particularly attractive (enough to want to pose for pictures), and I'm least inspired during the winter months anyway, when it's cold and everybody's all huddled up, covering their bodies under layers of clothing. But I've been reading some great stuff, and I wanted to point out two authors who've written on subjects relevant to this blog, and who I think deserve much praise.

The first is Nancy Friday, a sex-positive feminist who has published several books since the 1970s. I recently read her first book, My Secret Garden, which is largely a collection of women's various sexual fantasies. I tell you, it's enlightening, and incredibly liberating to hear women talk so frankly about their own sexual desires and fantasies. Friday's book is not a scientific survey like Kinsey's was, but it is nevertheless refreshing to hear anecdotes from women who think about sex in ways they're not supposed to, and who defy cultural stereotypes.

I love Kinsey and his work, but this is the one perspective most lacking from his studies, and I would have loved to have heard his reaction to women's sexual liberation, had he lived long enough to experience it. This book confirms that - although every woman is an individual with unique attitudes and aptitudes with regard to sex - there are women who are at least as psychologically stimulated by sex as men: women who fantasize about sex - even very perverted things like rape and bestiality and incest; women who are actually turned on by pornography; women who look at men's bodies the way men look at women's bodies.

It's a huge step forward in equalizing the sexual playing field between men and women and it's concerning that although this book was first published in 1973 - though we have come a long way since then - it still feels somewhat shocking and taboo, which is a testament to how enduring those pesky conservative stereotypes about women's sexuality are. It's also nice in that, being a product of the '70s, it's free (at least to a point) from some of the modern day rhetoric surrounding acceptable and unacceptable sexual fantasies.

The author also includes a scathing introduction that condemns the hypocrisy of all strains of feminism that seek to oppress women's sexuality. But though the author's comments and contributions are welcome, the best part of this book is that it's not about psychoanalyzing women's fantasies, but merely documenting them in the various women's own words. I haven't read any of Nancy Friday's other books yet (although I've got my eye on a few), but this one alone is worth putting on my nonexistent mandatory reading list for all sex-positive progressives.

The other author I'd like to bring to your attention is one Marty Klein, who is actually a prominent sex therapist, with lots of experience counseling couples, giving talks to promote sexual literacy, and even serving as an expert witness in free speech trials. He has a number of books published on various sexual topics, but the one that speaks to me most is America's War on Sex, which lucidly clarifies the battle lines in what is an attack on the principles the United States were founded on (as enumerated in the Constitution, particularly the first amendment) by the moral conservatives who use their discomfort with sex as an excuse to push their oppressive agenda.

It's amazing how pervasive the moralistic dogma of the religious right is, that even normal everyday citizens buy into the shame surrounding normal sexual behavior, and go along with all the false information in the media about the evils of pornography, prostitution, masturbation, contraception, comprehensive sex education, and so on. You hear it everywhere you go, and so it is genuinely refreshing to read from someone who doesn't buy into all that crap. That's what I try to be, right here on my blog, and wherever I share my nude and erotic photography.

And if you don't feel like buying a book, you can read a whole lot of Marty Klein's writing on his own blog, Sexual Intelligence, which I've recently added to my sidebar of recommended blogs. I honestly couldn't praise it too highly - this is stuff I feel like I'd have written, if I had the experience and training and professional standing that Dr. Klein has, and it's so in tune with my feelings and beliefs that if you like what I write, and what I stand for, I think you'll enjoy reading through some of it. This is a guy I'd want on my side in the fight for sexual liberation.

A Fashion Statement (and much more)

Some feminists are of the opinion that you can't be a "true" feminist unless you're a woman (otherwise, at best, you can be an "ally"). And some people (some of whom may be feminists) hold the belief that "transwomen" don't qualify as "true" women. On the contrary, I believe that persons who have had some transgender experience are in the best position to be feminists (if they so choose). After all, they've experienced, to some extent, what it's like both to be a woman and to be a man, and are thus uniquely capable of noting the differences. But then again, I am not a "traditional" feminist - I am a post-feminist and a trans-feminist and a member of the Male-Female Alliance.

Switching gears a little bit into the realm of fashion, I feel I ought to temper the following discussion with a little disclaimer. Obviously, regardless of what's common or how it's expected for the different sexes to dress, people do generally have the option of wearing what they like. There are, however, certain situations where that freedom of choice is reduced in one way or another, such as the one that has caused me no end of anxiety: the one regarding acceptable public swimming pool attire.

As I lamented last year, and then again earlier this season, the local swimming pool where I live has somewhat sexist rules regarding proper swim attire for men and for women (and I have a strong suspicion that this is endemic to the culture as a whole). Whereas the women are allowed to wear very skimpy bikinis (so long as they are not thongs), men are prohibited from wearing "speedo" or brief-type swimsuits. Well, now, I have finally had a chance to visit the swimming pool, and I'm happy to report that I was not kicked out for wearing "the black suit" (my most modest compromise) - at least not the first time - although I did get several looks and a few offhand comments, which were probably as much due to my femininity (and the fact that I was not wearing a "top", as most men do not) as to the rarity of a man wearing a small, form-fitting swimsuit (the novelty of which must not be downplayed).

The experience did, however, open my eyes to the sheer splendor of sights on display. Far more girls than I expected - and much of them of the younger variety - were preening in very skimpy swimsuits (and many of them skimpier than I would have imagined), as I had but unrealistically (I thought!) hoped for. It raised many questions in my mind, of the sociological and sexological variety, about the sexual attitudes of the people in this community, which are, on the whole, of a lower educational stratum than the one in which I myself was raised.

Now, if it were true (and I'm not certain that it is, however I may suspect it), that these people are generally more conservative and less progressive on social issues - such as feminism, gay rights, and things of that sort - then their more relaxed attitudes toward human sexuality (as would be predicted by Kinsey's research) more than make up for it! I would not trade anything in the world for the kind of stuck-up, prudish, ultra-modest, abstinence-positive, "holy purity" views that seem stereotypically to be more common among the higher educated groups (ironically), if it means more censorship and less of a chance to appreciate the erotic beauty of the human body.

On a semi-related note, I was thinking recently how ridiculous it sounds when feminists of a certain stripe go on about "sexualized" portrayals of women. Like, as if "sexualization" wasn't a natural process that every woman (and man) undergoes during adolescence. It's called puberty. You have to be really out of touch with your own sexuality and the sexuality of the human organism in general to think that the way different people (and the different sexes, in particular) relate to each other sexually is some unnatural and abhorrent side-effect (or main effect) of the patriarchal oppression of women. We can talk about the different ways that men relate to women sexually, and how some of them may be problematic, but if your platform is that men depicting or considering women in a way that emphasizes their sexual desirability is problematic, then you're on your own.

And another thing. I know this approaches the realm of the taboo - though it really should not, and the fact that it does says much about our neurotic and diseased attitudes on sexuality - but it is as clear as day to me that young women in their teenage years are not one iota less attractive than women in their twenties or thirties or older. Which is not to disparage the sexual value of an older (and often more experienced) woman - and I know very well that different people have different tastes when it comes to sexual partners, not to mention the importance of other qualities than the purely superficial (I say) - but if a man (or any person, really) is sexually attracted to the human female, and dares to say (whether for political correctness or to save his own ass or what) that teenage girls (generally speaking) are not exceptionally beautiful and attractive creatures, I fully believe that his tongue should be cut out for lying, and his eyes should be gouged with a hot knife, because they obviously aren't functioning properly. Usually I'm for the freedom of speech, but on this case there is so much insidious speech touting the opposite, that I'm just plain fed up.

In any case, the kind of sexual "license" that the lower classes may express is not itself unproblematic. There are issues such as teenage pregnancy and transmission of disease - which I suspect were strong motivators for the upper classes to push abstinence and sexual purity - and then there is also the matter of moral conservatism. As Kinsey found, the lower classes' freer approach to sexual intercourse is often accompanied by a fear and paranoia of less "traditional" sex acts such as masturbation, or nontraditional couplings (a glaringly obvious example being homosexuality). But this demonstrates, to me, that neither end of the spectrum has grasped a holistic and sex-positive approach. It is possible to be sexually liberated and sexually responsible (I offer my own life experience as evidence of that), but it requires the intelligence of the higher educational classes and the frank acceptance of human sexual behavior exhibited in the lower classes. I don't know what hope there is for raising the intelligence of the poor, but I'd think the better educated groups would be in a better position to reject the dogma of sex negative feminism and religion, but that remains to be seen.

I apologize, but I am prone to run off on tangents. (And this weekend's "stimulating" experience has got my brain running a mile a minute). Let's get back to the real point of this post - the fashion statement I wanted to make. I really wanted to use my photography to make the following point, but models are a bit beyond my reach right now, and I didn't feel confident doing another lame clone shot. So I used eLouai's doll maker instead. The point I wanted to make was the glaringly obvious difference between men and women's fashion at the swimming pool. True, I've gone on about this at length in the past, but it really is startling when it's staring you in the face - and so I wanted to use some images to demonstrate that. Meet Jack and Jill:

Can you see where this is going?

Reiterating what I implied in my disclaimer above, women have a lot more options for swimwear than men - and they don't have to wear a body-baring bikini if they don't want to. Fact is, a lot of women (and girls) do, and many seem to be pretty happy about it. I think that's great. I'm not in with the "sexualization" crowd. I don't think it's evidence of women being oppressed, I think it's evidence of women being the sexual organisms they were meant to be. But there is some very real sexism going on here, and it's the fact that men are not similarly expected to be haunches of meat for the objectifying gaze of women (or gay men).

But the most infuriating detail is not simply that men wearing skimpy swimsuits is not as common as women wearing skimpy swimsuits, but the fact that, while women are expected to wear skimpy swimsuits, men who choose to wear skimpy swimsuits are not simply accepted as outliers, but are mocked and ridiculed - and in many places actually restricted from doing exactly as the women are expected to do. You think the above picture is in any way, shape, or form balanced? I think this next picture represents a much better vision of sexual equality:

And I'm prepared to do what it takes (if I can figure out what that is) to make it the new reality. Because I tell you, living in this fucked up world is slowly driving me insane.

"Insanity is the only sane reaction to an insane world."

The Gender Scale

One of Kinsey's most famous and lasting contributions to our collective understanding of human sexuality came in the form of "The Kinsey Scale", which emphasizes the fact that most human beings are not exclusively hetero- or homo-sexual, but exist on a graded continuum between those two extremes - some being either more predominantly hetero- or homo-sexual, and many being somewhere in the middle (what we would probably call "bisexual").

In my personal experience, I used to be pretty homophobic (editor's note: in the sense of being fearful, not hateful), in no small part due to my cultural conditioning (a tradition which is thankfully starting to change). But in the process of embracing the truth and my own sexuality, I've become increasingly more comfortable with homosexuality, understanding that it is as beautiful and natural a part of human sexuality as heterosexuality is. Knowledge of the Kinsey Scale also helps in this regard, as it reassures those who are afraid of being incorrectly labeled to understand that, rather than being gay or straight, incidental gay experience or desires (and the suspicion thereof, whether by oneself or one's peers, and whether founded or not) does not necessarily mean that one is not still predominantly attracted to the opposite sex.

Although, if you do turn out to be more or less "gay", the ultimate conclusion is that it doesn't matter, because being gay is fine, too. And with this understanding, I've been able to acknowledge to what extent I may be stimulated by homosexual triggers, without being frightened or threatened by that awareness. In fact, it makes me feel more tolerant, and like a more well-rounded person - especially as someone who spends time studying human sexuality and exploring, as an erotic artist, what turns people on - since I can, at least to some extent, understand how "the other half" feels. (And as long as we're talking about being sexually attracted to men, does it even matter if the one being attracted is male or female? A straight female is just as "gross" for thinking men are sexy as a gay male, from that perspective).

That having been said, I find that I am still far more interested in and attracted to female human beings, both physically and mentally. Though I can acknowledge the erotic symbolism of the phallus, for example, I still find guys to be mostly gross and unappealing, and girls, on the other hand, to be incredibly alluring and desirable (leading me to at one point utter the phrase, "sex is just so much more fun with girls!"). Of course, this is not true of every female human being, but then the terms "hetero-" and "homo-sexuality" imply a certain amount of generalization (or at least the existence of further specifications), as few people are attracted to 100% of the male or female population.

Now, to switch gears a little bit - since my sexuality is fairly straightforward, but my gender is not - the transgender community has applied something of a similar approach to the Kinsey Scale to the question of gender identity - criticizing, in the process, the concept of the "gender binary", which presumes that a human being is either male or female. Let's call this "The Gender Scale".

On one side of the Gender Scale, you have stereotypical males exhibiting stereotypical masculine behavior, and on the other side, you have stereotypical females exhibiting stereotypical female behavior. And in the middle would be the "androgynes", those persons exhibiting some blend of masculine and feminine behaviors so as to mark their gender somewhat ambiguous.

Now, here's a caveat - since, as the transgender community understands, one's sex is not always aligned with one's gender, your position on the scale doesn't really depend on whether you are "sexually" a male or female (referring, usually, to your sex organs). You could place yourself somewhere on the scale by using a male or female symbol, indicating your sex (with alternative options for hermaphrodites, the intersexed, and other non-binary sexes), and then your degree of trans- or cis-ness would simply depend upon how close your sex symbol matches the end of the gender spectrum that's stereotypically associated with that sex.

But, nice as all this sounds, there are some problems. Firstly, I've been wondering a lot about whether I can truly consider my gender to be male or female. While I identify more with my femininity, I find sometimes that I do have some qualities that I feel are traditionally masculine. Ultimately, it might be true that I have different qualities associated with different genders (and I really don't think this is rare, even among non-transgender, cis-persons). And while I've thought in the past that it might be the case that I can switch back and forth between male and female (this is mostly true only with regard to visual cues like fashion), the closer truth may be that I am actually something of a bigender person, simultaneously (rather than consecutively) possessing qualities of the different genders.

And that's where the Gender Scale becomes complicated. There are just too many different qualities that distinguish the sexes. And while society imposes a lot of pressure for one gender to align with its own set of stereotypes, I think most people are going to stray somewhere. Maybe you're a girl and you wear pants more than skirts. Maybe you're a guy and you wear makeup. Maybe you like the color pink and action movies, or the color blue and playing with dolls. And how much weight do any of these qualities have in determining your overall gender identity? Can you be a gendered girl and have masculine interests (or vice versa), or does that, in fact, mean you are a form of transgender individual? And none of this even brushes on the complication of the fact that most gender stereotypes are arbitrary - why should girls be expected to like pink, and boys to like blue, in the first place?

So, you see, it does get complicated, and far from straightforward, when you actually take the time to think about it. Although, if anything, I think this emphasizes the importance of de-emphasizing the differences between the sexes. And isn't that really the goal of feminism after all? Except, in practice, feminism just reinforces gender opposition in the form of the war between the sexes. As a person with transgender experience, I have a hard time getting behind that, and it seems to me that a more enlightened approach would take into account the greater diversity of human individuality.

In the interest of true "sexual equality", we should stop judging people on their sex or gender, and whether those two things match up in the way they're expected to or not. Don't assume that women are feminine, or men are masculine. Don't assume they will always have the personality attributes, make the fashion choices, and share interests that are "expected" of their sex/gender. Don't assume that males always have penises and females always have breasts - if there are reasonable distinctions to be made, indicate that they are to be made based on the anatomy a person possesses, not on their sex or gender, assuming that only certain sexes and/or certain genders will have certain combinations of anatomy. I really think this is the enlightened way to do things. Am I being too radical?

Kinsey, History, and Patriarchy

Kinsey reflects that much of the ancient codes restricting human sexual behavior hinges on the property rights of the male to the female he is wedded to. This also manifests in the enduring belief that although promiscuous men are seen to be "accomplished" males, similarly promiscuous women are viewed poorly. It occurs to me that the whole idea of the male "owning" the sexual rights of the female is incredibly "patriarchal" and oppressive of women, in a straightforward way that none of the nebulous claims feminists make about modern institutions of our culture can be.

The fact that in Kinsey's findings, most women's sexual activity is guided by the greater interest of the male - both in her adolescent, pre-marital experiences, and in her frequencies of marital intercourse - suggest that, at least on the average, the view of women as the "gatekeepers" of sex and men as providing the demand is not wholly off. So the idea of men owning the "property" rights of the female, especially in the sexual realm, would seem to cater both to women's lesser interest in sex (punishing her for expressing an independent sexual agency), and to men's need for control of the vessel by which they can achieve sexual satisfaction.

Again, this is very oppressive and patriarchal, and even if it is true that, on average, women are less interested in sex than men, that is not justification for men owning and controlling (and shaming when they don't behave the way men want them to) women's sexual agency. However, I'm left wondering whether, in antiquity, this state of affairs arose because of men's actual greater interest in sex than women, and thus men enslaving women for the sake of satisfying their libido? Or was it simply a matter of men already having more power than women, and therefore being in a position to subdue women's natural sexuality in order to suit men?

It seems (to me) ironic that men would try to subdue women's sexuality in order to improve their sexual experiences - I think a sexually confident woman is a much better sexual partner - but I suppose from a less egalitarian mindset, the desire to control the object of one's affections, and dictate just when and how she performs her duties, may seem more desirable, especially considering the fact that a subdued woman will be less likely to go off and give her "gift" to other men, in effect stealing that experience from the woman's "owner". Crazy twists of logic, right?

In any case, what I'd love to be able to know, is how much of women's expressed sexuality is a product of biology, and how much is cultivated by longstanding social traditions that originate (or at least were propagated through) earlier times when women were more obviously subjugated to men than to whatever extent they are today. Another thing that Kinsey references on occasion is the different way that adolescent males and females are treated. The female's potential sexual adventures are more closely controlled by her parents and society, and she is more harshly admonished than males who engage in activities frequently encouraged by his peers and the reigning culture, which are more often overlooked even by adults and authority figures.

This seems to me a reflection of the age old tradition of controlling women's sexuality, and especially of valuing a woman's virginity upon marriage. Telling the adolescent girl not to experiment with her sexuality is, in essence, another way of saying that her sexual experience belongs to the man she will eventually marry, even if it's not clear who that will be for a number of years yet. And though virginity is an important quality for males, too, from the religiously-influenced, abstinence-positive position, males are not shamed for their sexual activity nearly as often, or as harshly, as females - even by other females.

I just wonder how our sexual politics would change if we could start fresh, from a blank slate, and just let men and women behave the way their bodies and minds are naturally inclined toward, free from centuries - millenia, even - of social conditioning. I guess it's too much to ask, but it frequently depresses me, all the negative ways I see evidence that a selfish, greedy, spiteful, vindictive culture has influenced the way we are as people. I want us to be better.

Considering Kinsey

Reading the Kinsey Reports can be a chore at times - as they are sociological texts with in-depth statistical analyses. But I would argue that they are, nevertheless, the most interesting text books I've ever read (and ones, it is worth noting, that I am reading fully voluntarily). But just as fascinating as the revelations Kinsey's statistics uncover (and probably more interesting to read), are the almost philosophical treatments he gives the subjects he encounters in his analyses of the statistics, often related to the conflicts that arise due to the vast differences between people's actual sexual behaviors, and the social, moral, and legal codes people are expected to follow.

On a related note, I find reading Kinsey to be uniquely refreshing because he takes a truly scientifically neutral - even anthropological - approach to human sexuality, free from the typical moral biases that most people take for granted when discussing sex (even most scientists, to the tragic detriment of mankind's factual knowledge about sex). I imagine, however, that that's also the reason that people who are threatened by Kinsey's findings (and his application of the scientific method to the traditionally "moral" realm of human sexual behavior) are so hostile toward his contribution to our knowledge of human sexuality. Moralism is frequently an obstacle to the truth, and in return, uncovering the truth often threatens traditional morals.

Really, I wish I could quote a whole bunch of passages at length from the Kinsey Reports, because they are insightful and well written and deserve to be read, and I fear that they may be lost among all the (what most people would call) boring statistics; in addition to the fact that the age of the reports - are they even still in print anymore? - may prevent some people from giving them proper consideration, despite how surprisingly relevant much of it still is today. Some of the details may have changed in the last half century or more - thanks to feminism, the sexual revolution, and increasing acceptance of homosexuality. But a lot of the issues as regards social expectations, moral treatments of sex, and the legal code are still applicable, certainly at least in a general sense.

Take, for instance, the following example. Though laws (and social restrictions) today are thankfully more permissive of non-procreative, extra-marital sexual behaviors, you can still find examples of the out-of-date and ultra-conservative sexual morals that have influenced some of the social and legal codes of today we have yet to abolish. At one point in his volume on the male (specifically at the beginning of the chapter on Marital Status and Sexual Outlet), as a kind of thought experiment, Kinsey discusses legal restrictions (at the time) against masturbation, due to the classical ascetic approach to sex (instead of the more fun hedonistic approach) inspiring modern sex codes. Note that laws criminalizing masturbation do so on entirely moral grounds.

Now imagine an educator who does not hold the same moral view of masturbation (and who is entitled thusly, as protected by the U.S. Constitution), and who, studying the science, comes to the conclusion that masturbation is healthy, and subsequently decides to start teaching people to masturbate. Well, because the law restricts speech that could be considered an incitement to commit a crime (in this case, masturbation), then the educator is committing a crime and can be prosecuted. This is a perfect example of how science can be impeded, and telling the truth can become a crime, when laws are written based on moral beliefs. Time has, thankfully, eroded opposition to the idea of masturbation being a potentially healthy sexual outlet, but are there not other cases, even within the realm of human sexuality (a subject that is rife with moralism) where the law reflects moral views that may run contrary to the natural facts?

If you are doubtful, try thinking about encouraging children, specifically (which in modern legal jargon includes adolescents), to masturbate, and see where that leads you (probably to a charge of contributing to the delinquency of minors). Among other things, Kinsey's data suggests that males reach their peak sexual potential just before the onset of adolescence. He also found that girls who have reached orgasm at least once through pre-marital contacts are much better at making sexual adjustments later in marriage. Try preaching that opposite your school's next church-sponsored "abstinence is rad" lecture. It's obvious that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a pervasive aspect of human life, and - for many - driven by a powerful, biological impetus that even strict moral codes and social prohibitions can only do so much to quell. What's not obvious, to me, is why so many people push so hard against that fact, and insist on viewing sexuality with so much suspicion, disdain...and moral revulsion.

In support of an amoral view of sexuality

I think one of the things that delights me most about reading Kinsey's findings, is his scientific approach to human sexuality - which, in particular, is remarkably devoid of any kind of moral judgment. It is so incredibly hard these days (and perhaps also in antiquity) to encounter a view of human sexuality that does not incorporate centuries old moral judgments. I would really like someone to explain to me why treating the issue of human sexuality from a moral standpoint is a good idea. What purpose does it serve? Because I'm of the opinion that approaching the issue with logic would be a whole lot more productive.

I think the moral view hinges on the treatment of sex as a "sin" - something dirty and vile. It's pleasurable, yes, but for some reason that makes it bad. Puritan much? If sex causes any kind of personal or social problems, can we not confront those problems directly, without making up fairy tales about staining the purity of your immortal soul? I just don't understand why anybody should want to think that the natural, biological urge of any sexual organism to seek sexual stimulation and satisfaction should be treated as some kind of tragic flaw.

I can see where the whole idea of procreation can cause some turmoil. Because, in actuality, though it can be argued that the purpose of sex is procreation, any rational observation of sexual behavior (in humans and other animals) will lead to the conclusion that a) a sexual organism derives more from sexual stimulation and satisfaction than solely the joy (or goal) of procreating, and b) the majority of sexual contacts in the life of any higher animal do not, in fact, lead to procreation.

Now, what I don't understand is why this whole moral thing about non-procreative sex being bad even comes into the picture. Non-procreative sex is natural - it's not abnormal, nor an aberration of the natural course of things. And though, among the animal kingdom, humans are civilized to the point of considering "planned parenthood", and not simply fucking around indiscriminately until somebody gets pregnant (although there is an alarming amount of that still in evidence), we are also technologically advanced to the point of having several methods of contraception.

But these are logistics. Pregnancy is a big deal, whether you view it as a God-given miracle, or simply the creation of a life that you're going to have to expend unimaginable amounts of time and money caring for. So why can't we simply view it as a practical matter, devoid of moral judgment? If a person seeks sexual satisfaction through means that avoid (or significantly reduce) the risk of unplanned pregnancy, for example, why should that still bother anyone? Why all this emphasis on "saving yourself"? The whole idea of soulmates - while romantic - is wildly unrealistic. It's fine as a personal ideal, but it's also unnatural, and noone should be punished for not living up to it.

Sex is everywhere. That's natural. Why do people still push so hard against that fact? Accept it already! Why is sex even bad anyway? Why are people who fail to live up to society's unrealistic standards of prudishness viewed with such disdain? Why does anyone who chooses to wear revealing clothing in public receive so much criticism? Why is someone who accepts the fact that sexual intimacy is (for many) a requirement for a healthy life viewed in such a negative light? And why should such intimacy be limited to very specific legal arrangements (i.e., marriage) anyway?

The reason Kinsey was so insightful is because he didn't let moral judgments blind him to the truth of his scientific findings. I mean, that's a requirement of any successful scientific study. The problem is, nobody (hardly) treats sex with scientific objectivity. There's too much moral baggage. And I guess a lot of people are okay with that - they're invested in the illusion. But I'm not. It's bad. It's bad for individuals, and it's bad for society on the whole. And it's got to change.

I don't know how to change anyone's mind on this matter (or any other). But are there not more people out there in this world who think "morality" is a terrible thing to apply to something that affects so many people? Different people are going to have different moral beliefs. That's one of the fundamental issues. Kinsey also suspected that a lot of the social problems we have regarding society's view of sex are the result of different people with very different sexual capacities and experience imposing their own personal beliefs on the population as a whole, without regard to the varying needs of different people.

I don't give a damn if you think non-procreative sex is bad. I don't give a damn if you think pre-marital intercourse, or extra-marital intercourse, or intercourse with prostitutes is bad. I don't give a damn if you think masturbation is immoral. I don't give a damn if you think abstinence, or celibacy, is a virtue. I don't give a damn if you think there's some special value in virginity. I don't give a damn what your own personal morals surrounding sex are. But other people are going to have different morals - as they are entitled to - and regardless of anyone's morals, these behaviors are going to occur. The morals are irrelevant. What choices people make for themselves is nobody else's business. The only thing that matters is the effect those choices have on other people, and that is the realm of ethics, of logistical concerns, keeping individual liberty - supposedly a tenet the United States was built upon - in mind.

But, above all, sex is an act. It is not a battlefield for your immortal soul, and especially not one where everybody else's choices in the world determine the level of your own perceived "purity".

{I apologize if I get a little too preachy sometimes. It's because I'm really pissed off. And sometimes I feel completely alone in my beliefs - even if I'm not literally alone, you don't exactly hear my views distributed via mainstream channels. And in the rare case that you do, they're always beaten down relentlessly by conservative blowhards (and sometimes even liberal fucktards). The worst part isn't that these people disagree, but that they somehow manage to do so while maintaining an air of moral superiority. When, in truth, they're the ones who are morally bankrupt. It's disgusting. And it's depressing.}

Why do you like that?

Taking a scientifically neutral approach to sexual response, Kinsey often emphasizes tactile stimulation in sexual activity, as well as the important role that psychologic conditioning plays in determining our erotic triggers. This is especially true with regard to the question of homosexual experience. Whereas mainstream opinion (more so in the mid-twentieth century when his research was first published) was of the belief that most people are straight and a minority are "gay", Kinsey found that homosexual experience was a lot more prevalent than previously thought.

But further, in my interpretation, he seemed to be a proponent of the theory that the human organism could respond to a wide array of stimulation, not strictly limited to one's narrow preferences. For example, a true heterosexual male (with no feelings of homosexual attraction), might respond physically (if not psychologically) to the experience of another male tactilely stimulating his genitalia, so long as he keeps his eyes closed (or perhaps even otherwise). This is not necessarily a statement about his psychological preferences, but merely evidence of the physical aspect of sexual arousal.

Kinsey, however, almost seems to want to extrapolate this observation in an effort to suggest that a person's preferences are not so much hard-wired as being conditioned by one's experiences - after all, if a "straight" man can become physically aroused by homosexual stimulation, then the only thing keeping him straight is his psychological conditioning to believe that heterosexual contact is desirable and homosexual contact is not. While there may be some truth to this view, I don't think it adequately explains the full situation.

For example, in a world that shuns homosexual contact (again, much more so in the mid-twentieth century), how is it possible that a person could become conditioned to prefer - maybe even exclusively - such contact? It seems to fly in the face of the - fairly popular nowadays - "born this way" theory; and, simultaneously, dangerously lends credence to the belief that a person's sexual preferences can, ostensibly, be forcibly changed through re-conditioning (a theory that has had a less than stellar track record in practice).

While it is probably true that people are a lot more fluid in their sexualities than they often give themselves credit for, and I appreciate any attempt to encourage people to experiment with new possibilities (and be more compassionate and understanding of others not like them), I'm just not so sure that a person's preferences are not at least a little bit wired from the start.

Certainly, the particulars of my sexual tastes have evolved through the years, and it is hard to acknowledge an attraction to something you haven't really had the opportunity to be exposed to, or seriously considered in an erotic context, but I don't see myself as ever having had a drastic change of preference; and though I might come to see the maybe not-so-obvious appeals of alternative erotic triggers, I have a hard time believing that the basic, physical force behind my attraction to the things I like will ever change on a fundamental basis.

Maybe it's because the role of conditioning is far more potent during a person's formative (i.e., childhood) years, but even then, how do you explain the existence of people who seem to have preferences that go against the grain of their upbringing? I think this is a fascinating question to ask in the realm of sexology - what makes people like what they like - but I think there are still some important pieces of the puzzle missing.

This is what I'm talking about

The current trend is to disparage the male pattern of sexual behavior as demeaning and objectifying of women, which is an extension of the feminist mindset. I'd hate to be labeled as a misogynist for my views, because the truth is, I have oodles of respect for women. But I'm also sexually attracted to them, and whatever portion of the feminist movement is righteous (and a significant portion of it is, don't get me wrong), this whole subset of it that aims to demonize men for thinking women are sexually appealing is misguided and destructive.

My thinking on this matter is further clarified by my recent reading of the female half of the Kinsey Report, particularly on the statistical differences in sexual attitudes between men and women. Although the existence of exceptions and deviations from the average are important to note, the great diversity of attitudes present in women (more so than compared with men) also contributes to the problem of the sexes wherein men are pretty much of an understanding with one another when it comes to sex, while women are lost in a sea of confusion, not just as to how men feel about sex, but as to how other women feel about sex, too.

My conclusion, at any rate, is that an awful lot of this politically correct hullabaloo about men degrading and objectifying women is merely a symptom of a fundamental misunderstanding about the way men feel about sex, and the differences in the ways that men and women feel about sex. For example, this article [broken link] bemoans the fact that in a GQ shoot (which, in all fairness, is a magazine that caters to men's interests), several men were photographed in suave business suits, whereas the one woman included (who happened to be pop singer Lana Del Rey) was photographed naked (though obviously not exposing anything of significance) in a number of alluring poses.

Is this evidence of the patriarchal subjugation of women as submissive sex slaves as compared to the power and sophistication that men wield? A resounding no! It's simply a matter of men being sexually attracted to beautiful women, and having a strong instinctual desire to see them naked, and in poses that may suggest to them the promise of sexual intercourse. It's not as if women's magazines don't similarly stereotype shirtless muscle-bound men - but if it happens less often than the gender-swapped alternative, it's only because men are more (openly, at least) interested in sex than women (and more responsive to visually suggestive depictions of it, too), and - not to ignore the homosexual population, but since the majority of the population is mostly heterosexual, that is, most of the time, going to result in more (and more noticeable) sexualized depictions of women than men in the collective cultural media. It's not some gender-based power play, it's just basic human sexual nature! You fail Sex Ed 101, people. Go back to the first grade.

[description: tasteful celebrity nude of a woman seated on the floor, knees bent toward chest]

Social evil? Or just beautiful art?
Beware the (wo)man who looks for evil under every stone.

Psychologic Stimulation

I can't even begin to tabulate all the fascinating discoveries I've made while in the course of reading The Kinsey Reports (currently, the female volume), but above all, it's fascinating to me to uncover some scientific evidence (even if just of the statistical variety) on some of the psychological differences between males and females when it comes to the nature of sexual response. Inevitably, the question of nature and nurture arises, and there is always an uncertainty about whether our culture has been shaped around the differences in the sexes, or whether the differences in the sexes have been manufactured by the shape of our culture (or what combination of those factors is involved), but barring the answer to that question, it's interesting to study - not just speculate, but based on considerable un-conventionally-biased statistical sources - the way that males and females react differently to sexual stimuli.

More specifically, I've always been highly concerned about the way that females respond to visual erotic stimuli, as compared to males - which is a topic of considerable importance to me as a straight male erotic model. ...Who has, incidentally, experienced extremely limited attention from females, and a wealth of attention from, instead, gay males. It is not news to me that males are, on the average, more responsive to visual erotic stimuli than females are - after all, this is a speculation I've heard time and time again in response to the question of why visual male erotica is not more popular among females.

Interestingly, if you look at it from one perspective, images of nude females are produced for a straight male audience, and images of nude males are produced (in considerably lesser abundance) for a gay male audience. It's as if females are of no consequence. This actually dovetails with other media in different contexts to produce the picture that seems to suggest that males are the ones interested in sex, while females could take it or leave it. Interestingly, Kinsey et al. has found that while females are, on the whole, less interested in sex than males (although certainly not strictly uninterested, in most cases), there is actually a wider variety of individual variation to be found in females than in males. That's fascinating, too, but it's also a different story.

Although, incidentally, while we're on this tangent, I had a kind of epiphany moment (inspired by Kinsey's own interpretations, to put credit where it's due), that led me to speculate that maybe the reason (or a reason) females are so much more judgmental of other females' sexual behaviors, while males pretty much understand one another when it comes to sex, is due to the great variation between individual females. Males are rarely surprised by or unfamiliar with the sexual experiences of other males, but I imagine a considerably less responsive female would have a much harder time understanding the promiscuous behavior of a considerably more responsive female, when she's already come to the opinion, based on her own personal experience, that sex isn't particularly enjoyable, as a woman.

Honestly, the insights are nonstop. But let's get back to the original point of this ramble, which has to do with visual erotic depictions. There's been a question, in the feminist discourse, about how come there are all these erotic visual images of women in the media, to a disproportionate extent (compared to similar images of men). And the factory answer implicates the patriarchy, which may have something to do with it. There's a whole thing about the sexual objectification of women, and how that's a bad thing, and because I enjoy the portrayal of women as sex objects, yet like to play fair, I've invited, through my photography, anyone and everyone to sexually objectify me. The idea being to level the playing field - not by wiping out sexual objectification, which I enjoy, but by redressing the balance between the sexes, and objectifying men more frequently.

But then I was reading Kinsey, and it hit me. If women aren't interested in looking at men in a sexual way to the extent that men are interested in looking at women (and predominantly gay men, who probably constitute a smaller portion of the population than females, at other men), then it only makes perfect sense that there are more sexual portrayals of women in the media than of men. And it's not some stupid patriarchy thing, it's just how the sexes differ. But then, that's not an entirely new angle for me, because I believe that a lot of the feminist-inspired conflict between the sexes arises as a result of women being fundamentally confused about the nature of male sexuality - or else, they understand it, but are simply willing (and often enthusiastic) to discriminate against men in retaliation for past (and ongoing) treatment of their own sex. (Which is the reason why I am a post-feminist - to use a different civil rights issue in comparison, I don't believe the solution to white ancestors' enslavement of black people is for black people to enslave modern day white people who weren't personally responsible for the slavery in order to get even - the goal is equality, not retaliation).

So, really, I think, as important as it is for men to understand how females respond to sex - and, most importantly, simply to understand that females may respond differently to sex than the average male does (so, for example, she might not appreciate being texted a picture of your dick as much as you might love being texted a picture of her twat), I really think it's just as important for women to understand - and not just understand, but accept - the way men respond to sex. So-called "objectification", "sexualization", porn use, and so on and so forth. None of these are an excuse for men to treat women poorly. At the same time, it is not some big discriminatory conspiracy for men to respond favorably to sexualized depictions of women. It's human fucking nature (that has corollaries in other mammalian species), and I don't see how it's harmful.

Kinsey (2004)

I recently got around to watching Kinsey, the biopic starring Liam Neeson as the infamous sex researcher Alfred Kinsey. I'm not an expert on the details of Alfred Kinsey's life or studies, despite the fact that his work is right up my alley. But I never had any formal education into the history of human sexuality studies, and most of what I know comes from my own experiences and the application of my own skeptical, analytical mind.

But I was looking forward to seeing this movie, and have for a long time been of the mind that I could stand to have a bit more familiarity with Kinsey's work. As of now, however, all I have to go on is the dramatized depiction of the individual in this movie adaptation of his life and work, which may, admittedly, be biased to some degree. But that is something I cannot comment on, not having more information, and as far as the movie tells it, I am nothing but impressed.

The movie itself, I would have to say, is very well done. There is very little I could criticize about it, and, in keeping with the aims of Kinsey's research, it does a successful job of emphasizing not only much of his findings, but the importance of those findings in both a biological and social context, as well as the overbearing conservative pressure that exists in society with the aim to silence his discoveries and discredit his methods (an issue that comes up in any mixed group where Kinsey is discussed, even to this day, disappointingly).

Arrived at via extensive scientific and statistical research, Kinsey cataloged the sexual behaviors of myriad people, asking them just the sorts of questions to uncover the activities the majority of the population engages in, but (and especially at the time - early-mid 20th century) are so reluctant to talk about. Among his contributions to our collective cultural understanding of human sexuality is the discovery that many people are far more sexual than they let on in polite company. To indicate otherwise is nothing short of disingenuous.

He also pioneered the "Kinsey scale" of sexual orientation, which suggests (backed up by evidence) that rather than a binary, most people fall somewhere along a sliding scale between gay and straight. According to this film, Kinsey also experimented with open relationships, and embraced the idea that sex can be a physical act divested of its traditional exclusionary romantic complications (although the reality of this view may be fraught with the complications of the human mind).

Perhaps of greatest sensitivity, the film also emphasizes the importance of Kinsey's research to the individual lives of the public. While many - who are beholden to their traditional moral codes that prohibit a free and open approach towards matters of a sexual nature - resist Kinsey's discoveries, the fact is that repression and shame destroys people's lives, where an honest approach can, as exemplified by the account of one individual interviewee in the film, save lives.

This is no more apparent than in cases of sexual minorities that are widely discriminated against. And while I am very happy to see homosexuality become more and more accepted in my lifetime, it is but one of a vast diversity of human sexual orientations, many of which continue to be ridiculed and stigmatized. Not afraid, even, to address the implications of his research to the inhumane treatment of sex offenders, Kinsey was, truly, a visionary and a revolutionary and, at least as depicted in this film, a true sex-positive, which is so incredibly rare to find.

The most amazing and most depressing point in any discussion of Alfred Kinsey is the fact that despite all the breakthroughs he made in the field of human sexuality, there is still so much work to be done, and - this would be inexplicable if human nature weren't so predictable - there is still so much resistance to his findings and the implications they have for us as a species and as a civilized society. Nothing would please me more in this life than to be able to contribute to the great social project that Kinsey started.