Sexology, Perversion, and Asocial Sexuality

I was browsing the blogs on XTube today - but only briefly, because they consist entirely of uninteresting hookup personals - and I became frustrated, as I so frequently do, that despite so many people having an interest in sex, there are very few people willing to talk intelligently about it. The extent of most people's desire is to find what gets them hot so that they can get off. And then it occurred to me, that you do hear a lot about sex from the anti-sex crowd - the people who don't like to indulge in sex but like instead to talk about how horrible sex is ("the moral decay of modern society", etc.). And there just isn't enough of a voice from the sex-positive crowd - which I attribute at least as much to the sex-indulgers being ashamed of their indulgence than the proud ones being too busy getting off.

Anyway, a thought came to my mind which has come in the past - that I should be a sexologist of some sort. How awesome would it be to have some kind of official degree declaring my interest in sex beyond the obvious, to the level of intellectualism? I'm not really interested in couples therapy or the biology of sexual activity, but sex from a more philosophical and political/sociological perspective. I'm interested in how people think and feel about sex (more so than the actual sex that they have). I'm interested in how we as a society define sex, and how little that conforms to real human sexuality, and the enormous societal problems that causes in terms of how we deal with sexual issues (personally and culturally), as well as what solutions there might be to ameliorate that damage, and help improve the health of our sexual attitudes in the future.

But there's two problems. One, which is not dissimilar to the phenomenon I described above, being that 'sex' is not as frequently treated as a serious issue for study as, say, medicine, or engineering, or what have you. There is what looks to be an awesome school in San Francisco (of course) - the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality [broken link] - but that brings me to my other problem. I do not live in (or anywhere remotely near) San Francisco, and I don't have the money to go back to school even if I did. Nevertheless, I began digging into their online journal of research, reviews, and such, and I came across this paper titled Constructing Perversions, which deals with the topic of classification of paraphilias in the DSM (a subject of particular interest to me, as it highlights the dysfunction in our current view of what constitutes normative - or, as the author designates it, "normophilic" - sexuality).

I have long been of the suspicion that our understanding of "perversity", particularly in the context of diagnosing mental disorders of a sexual variety (i.e., "paraphilia"), is a symptom of our grossly negligent misunderstanding of human sexuality in the first place. And the paper linked above does an excellent job of arguing that. The author explains how the religious model of non-procreative sex acts as sin has been redefined in our modern, secular world by designating the "purpose" of sex not as procreation but as being for "reciprocal affection". In other words, the point of sexual desire is to bring people together, to facilitate interpersonal bonding. Any sex acts that do not accomplish this goal are deemed non-normative and thus perverse.

This is actually, exactly the topic of an essay I tried to write once before, but never posted because I ended up going off on a massive tangent. It was titled "asocial sexuality". The dominant paradigm of sexual activity is that it serves a social function - to bring people together. Therefore, sex acts that are viewed as being "asocial" (which I do not consider to be the same thing as outright antisocial) are labeled perverse, and viewed in a negative light. Among these are included such popular pastimes as solo masturbation and private porn use. But, I would argue, these activities are not only a healthy part of normal sexuality, but are also invaluable resources for those who struggle with social interaction (as I do), and that stigmatizing such acts only further marginalizes those minorities who are unable to seek out sex in its accepted form - that is, the form of reciprocal affection.

Wow, I just summarized this long, meandering essay I had written in a single paragraph! Anyway, the paper I linked above is a very good read (for better or worse, the middle section goes on about Big Pharma's monopoly and selfish manipulation of our modern understanding of proper mental functioning), that also touches (albeit very briefly) on the possibility that "exhibitionism" may include a wide swath of behaviors beyond the caricature of the indiscriminate flasher (which itself is just one example of the importance of differentiating between people with truly problematic and antisocial sexual hangups, and other people who just have peculiar, but otherwise healthy, sexual appetites) - which I have approached before (here, and here).

God, the things we think we know about human sexuality are so tragically wrong. It truly is an appalling vista. And every time a lone voice of reason chimes out, cutting through all the din of ignorance and dogma, it is shouted down mercilessly. Oh no, you don't dare suggest that maybe pornography could be good for society. Or that prostitution might be seen as a legitimate vocation. And don't even think about re-evaluating what we teach kids about sex. Because we're absolutely addicted to our sexual dysfunction, and we want it to persist through the generations!

You know, it's true what Jim Morrison said. People are attached to their chains. ;-)

My Girlfriend's Closet

I was reading about fashion in an issue of Seventeen magazine, and it hit me. Girls wearing their boyfriends' clothing is so accepted and mainstream, that a girl can actually buy clothes made for her, that are designed to simulate the "I grabbed this off my boyfriend's floor" (implied: after we slept together) look. See: boyfriend tee, boyfriend jeans. Generally, the style emphasizes the difference between guys' and girls' clothing, with the "boyfriend" styles being larger and baggier, compared to girls' usual slim, form-fitting garments.

And don't get me started on girls wearing boxers. Yeah, I can see the kink appeal of a girl wearing her partner's underwear (even more so than their outerwear), but in my opinion, a girl just doesn't look appealing in men's underwear. But it's a popular trend that's almost unanimously deemed "sexy", thanks to mainstream "guy culture".

But, try turning the tables for a second. I think a guy wearing his girlfriend's underwear is sexy, too (from the perspective of a guy wearing girls' underwear, not necessarily how he looks). And it's not uncommon, because a lot of guys (though most of them probably wouldn't admit it publicly) do have a bit of a perverted interest in women's undergarments.

[description: a man standing next to a bed wearing a pair of sheer white panties]

But how is it viewed in mainstream culture? Not sexy. Not even cute. Just plain perverted. What kind of guy wears his girlfriend's panties, unless he's a perv or a closet homo (or both)? Either that, or he's a "pussy-whipped" sissy and it's part of his humiliation at the hands of his dominant girlfriend.

I'll grant you, that men's underwear (at least of the baggy, boxer variety) is more comfortable than a lot of women's (tight-fitting) underwear. (Although, I've never liked the feeling of wearing loose undergarments beneath another layer of clothing). And while women's underwear is more frequently designed to look sexy, because of the difference in men's and women's bodies, it often doesn't have the same effect when stuffed with a bulging package.

[description: a man wearing short shorts barely visible under a flowery, off-the-shoulder shirt]
These pictures are probably unfair, given my ultra-feminine style and grooming.

Nevertheless, as with the entire wardrobe, women's clothing is designed with more variety, frequently more emphasis on aesthetics over comfort (compared to men's clothing - except maybe in the case of tuxedos and business suits), and many more fabrics and colors and styles. Maybe most men aren't into those things, but just as some women probably love the comfort and simplicity of men's casual clothing (the kind of girls who take every chance to borrow their boyfriends' clothes, and often buy garments of a less feminine nature at the store), I know for a fact that there are some men out there who find the ethos and philosophy behind women's clothing appealing.

[description: a man wearing a zippered hoodie and tight jeans]

Now, you can find fitted tees for men, and skinny jeans, and things of that sort, that are probably closer to feminine styles than what guys usually wear. But even then, I don't think we get as much variety in terms of colors and fabrics and graphics and what have you. Girls have the option of rocking distressed jeans and Nirvana tees (and are respected for it), but guys aren't really given the choice to wear unicorn tees and sequined jeans (and if they do, they're more likely ridiculed for it). Unless they actively shop in the women's section, of course, but then finding clothes in the right size can be difficult - since girls can rock the baggy "one size too big" look probably a lot better than guys can rock the ultra-tight "a couple sizes too small" look.

[description: a man wearing a dress, with the skirt lifted up to reveal a penis underneath]
I came upon that problem trying to squeeze into this dress.

Well, this isn't the first time I've conjectured on a clothing line for men designed to simulate women's clothing. Ultimately, though, what's needed is not just the opportunity for men to dress like women (if they so choose), but also acceptance for it as well (although acceptance may be a gradual side-effect of there being more opportunities). A girl can grab something off of her boyfriend's floor and wear it for the day without much to-do. But can you imagine what it would be like for a guy to grab something out of his girlfriend's closet and, in all seriousness, wear it for the day?

A Couple of Pet Peeves

To each their own, but both as a voyeur/exhibitionist and as a photographer/model, these two things get on my nerves.

1. Men who don't let their wives/girlfriends dress sexy or pose seductively, because they're jealous of other men looking at her.

You fuck with your cock, not with your eyes, jeez!

I could also go into fathers who police their daughters' wardrobes because they don't want them to dress like "sluts", while turning around and high-fiving their buddies when a group of skimpily-dressed "sluts" passes them on their way to the bar. If you enjoy women's sex appeal, how about treating the ones who show it off with a little respect? Sheesh.

2. Women who say they won't pose nude because they're saving their body for their significant other.

Even if the entire world sees you naked (which is not a big deal, by the way), your husband/boyfriend is still the only person who gets to have sex with you. And that's a pretty big fucking deal, in my opinion.

Like I said, everyone can make their own decisions in life, but these are two things I don't personally agree with.

Speedos for Feminism

A new local waterpark opened this season, and I took the time to peruse its rules board. Unexpectedly, I had a particular interest in the section labeled "swimming attire". Along with various articles not designed for swimming, and anything see-through, there was a part prohibiting "thong suits" and "men's speedos".

Now, I can understand the prohibition of thong suits. Thongs (for women or men) are deliberately provocative and - most importantly - leave bare nearly a person's entire bottom. But speedos? Aren't speedos basically the male equivalent of a woman's bikini? I mean, I know that speedos are notoriously unpopular in America, and frequently the butt of many a joke, but actually prohibited at a waterpark? That's insane!

Now, I figure, the rules have probably been designed to minimize exposure (read: public indecency), and to maintain a "family-friendly" atmosphere. And speedos are, it's hard to deny, more provocative than the below-the-knee baggy board short style that's popular among men these days. But you can't stand there and tell me that a fit young woman in a flattering bikini (even of the full-backed variety) is not sexually provocative! Yet, they're not prohibited.

So what's the problem with speedos? Is it because they "highlight" a man's package? How is that any different from pokies and camel toe? And if you're worried about genital outlines, there are suits specifically designed to prevent that (I know, I own one). Speedos are not fringe fetish wear, like t-backed thongs. Speedos are designed for swimming, not for lewd exposure. They are far more substantial than the near-mythical pouch-on-a-string (have you ever seen anyone wearing one of those?). Hell, athletes often wear speedos at the Olympics! You can't get much more legitimate than that.

No matter how I look at it, I can't help seeing this as a double standard that disadvantages men. How come women can put on a bikini to look and feel sexy (and minimize unnecessary fabric floating around in the pool, which also takes longer to dry after you get out), but if a man dares wear a speedo, he's viewed as being either overconfident or a walking joke?

Believe me, if you do a search on people's opinions of speedos (and please, feel free to search for yourself), you get a whole lot of this: "speedos should be illegal", "nobody looks good in a speedo", "speedos are gross because they show too much", "speedos look ridiculous even on attractive men", coming from men and women. It's disgusting! And yet, what are people's general opinions of bikinis? "Hot," not gross. "Sexy," not funny. All this, despite the fact that not all men are fat, old, and ugly, and not all women have bikini-ready bodies.

And you know what it sounds like? It sounds like the old feminist argument about the patriarchy sexually objectifying women. I'll tell you what, it definitely smacks of a male perspective. Women in bikinis are hot, because men are attracted to them. But men in speedos? Gross. Why? Because men aren't attracted to them. Seeing a man in skin-tight swimwear raises most straight guys' gay alarm. The thing I don't understand is why women have jumped on that bandwagon, too.

Maybe it's because - as the dreadfully tiring stereotype goes - men are interested in looks while women go for something else (personality? sense of humor? their wallet?). But frankly, I think it's ridiculous to believe that women aren't visually attracted to men in some sense. Or maybe it's because - as another dreadfully tiring stereotype goes - men's bodies just aren't designed to look appealing the way women's bodies are.

Hell, I've said that myself - but I'm not attracted to men's bodies, I'm attracted to women's bodies. And you know what? That sounds a whole lot like more (straight) male perspective. Men are attracted to women's bodies and not to men's bodies (unless you're gay, and being gay is even lamer than being a woman), and so it's politically correct to say that women's bodies are beautiful works of art while men's bodies are ugly, utilitarian machines (though I bet the Greeks would have an argument with that).

And yet the fact remains that there are plenty of women out there without perfect bodies, and at the same time, lots of men who take their appearance seriously. Doubtless, the average guy probably thinks he looks sexier in board shorts than he would in a speedo (and the average woman would enthusiastically agree), but that's more cultural conditioning, if you ask me. We aren't used to treating men's thighs as a potentially attractive part of their body. A little grooming does wonders. And most of the population seems not to have passed the point of maturity where they can acknowledge that men have penises without giggling like little schoolgirls. But the bottom line is, you can't say that no man looks good in a speedo.

As it stands, it seems to me that wearing a speedo (in America, at least) has become a rebellious act. It undermines the straight male culture that holds so much power over society. And feminism is every bit about legitimizing feminine roles (like being the object of someone's desire) as it is about empowering women to adopt masculine roles. Wearing a speedo tells the world that you believe women aren't the only sex that can be objectified, and that men ought to be subject to the same pressures to be attractive as women already are. (And, as a side-effect, they can reap the same benefits - that is, of adoration and the feeling of being desired).

Damn, I could organize a really good protest around this. "Speedos for Feminism!" Unfortunately, though, I don't think there are enough men (or women) in this town who care. How sad is that?

Correlating Homophobia with Transphobia

Homophobia ("gay bashing") is as much about enforcing rigid gender roles as it is about opposition to homosexuality. Which I find confusing, because I consider a group of guys bonding over hypermasculine rituals a whole lot gayer than a man painting his toenails with a bunch of girls. I know as well as anyone that your interests, activities, and gender expression do not determine your sexual orientation, but it's not unheard of (nor hard to believe) for guys heavily involved in masculine culture to turn out to be gay. Yet the stereotype for homosexual men is to have effeminate style. Meanwhile, I wear pink dresses and panties with princesses on them, and I'm the straightest guy I know, strictly in the sense of being attracted to girls. It just so happens that I'm so attracted to girls that I'd rather wear girls' clothes and underwear (among other things) than men's. And so, the weightlifter with his bulging pecs represents, to me, in all his masculinity, homoeroticism far more than my decision to don a skirt and brush my hair. But all of this confusion is, ultimately, a symptom of the fact that we've got the concepts of sex, gender, and orientation all mixed up together. Still, I find it the height of irony that I have to put up armor against gay bashing attitudes from hypermasculine brutes all because I adore females a little too much...

Actually, when I think about it, maybe what's happening with regards to gender policing is that men see feminine cues in me, and it makes them uncomfortable because they're instinctually attracted to those feminine cues. So when they discover that I'm not "really" a woman, they realize they've just felt potential feelings of attraction towards a man. The homophobia kicks in, but ironically, instead of recognizing the source of the problem in themselves, they project it onto me, claiming it's my fault they were attracted to me, because I tricked them by donning the "guise" of a female (this is the mentality behind the phenomenon of "traps"). This could only be possible in a culture where having even a mistaken and transient male homosexual attraction is something frightening that threatens a man's very humanity.

I have, on occasion, seen guys that look like girls and thought at first that they were attractive. Upon realizing that they are guys, the attraction mostly fades - not because I'm scared of being attracted to guys, but merely because there is something about guys that turns me off, and something lacking in them that girls have that turns me on, and so knowing that they are guys does undermine the attraction significantly. I can, however, still recognize that the guys are pretty, or attractive in an objective sense (like being "model pretty" or aesthetically beautiful), and without at any point feeling threatened that I was mistakenly attracted to a guy. I guess I can have confidence in my sexual orientation, both because I've reached a point where even if I did turn out to have some gay feelings, I'd know there was nothing wrong or bad about it, and also because I've explored my sexual feelings pretty far, and I have a pretty solid understanding of what they are.

I can just imagine the following scenario:

Buff guy: Me and the buds are going to the gym to lift weights. You in?
Effeminate guy: Nah, I promised the girls I'd go tanning with them.
Buff guy: Pff, that's so gay.
Effeminate guy: Right. And while you and "the buds" are all sweating together, complimenting each other on your buff bodies, I'll be stripped to my skivvies with a bunch of girls rubbing tanning oil all over their nearly naked bodies. If that's gay, then I'm a flaming homosexual and proud of it.
Buff guy: Ugh, dude, save it for the parade...

Why I don't identify as a "sissy"

It's actually very simple. Sissification is a process of humiliation via feminization. But I don't feel humiliated by my own feminization - I feel empowered by it! Girls are not, to me, inferior beings; they are better than men in almost every way!

Now, I understand the sexual appeal of humiliation. And I don't want to rain on anyone's sexual fantasies (believe me, that's the last thing I want to do) - and as long as you understand the difference between those fantasies and reality (i.e., not humiliating real females outside the bedroom), then play on.

But it does seem kind of unfortunate, the sexist implications of sissification - and I think it would be nice if we could accomplish the goal of sexual humiliation in a less gender-rigid way. So, like, instead of identifying everything feminine as something humiliating, you could focus on the submissive aspect, and various roles (like servant, housekeeper) and outfits (something unglamorous like rags, or embarrassing like a clown costume) that don't carry a direct gender-specific connotation.

That'd be nice, but I do understand that you can't just reason your sexual desires to be whatever you want, and that, especially, non-PC roles can be extremely thrilling in large part because of how 'bad' or 'wrong' they are.

But, if you've ever wondered why I, personally, don't identify as a sissy, it's because I don't find feminization humiliating. It turns me on, to be sure, but for a wholly different reason: that is, I'm attracted to femininity itself, and the idea of being feminine; humiliation doesn't come into the picture at all.

Legs Are In

I am so totally in love with contemporary fashion right now. Feminism be damned, girls are being decked out like gemstones in bright pastels and glittering sequins. And to hell with modesty, when you're out in the summer sun, the name of the game seems to be 'dare to bare'. I mean, girls aren't even waiting to develop their figures before they start strutting around the pool in their two-piece bikinis!

And a super popular trend these days - which also happens to be my top favorite off-the-beach summer look - is the short shorts and flip flops combo. Both of these pieces are popular; they're simple and ultra-versatile, and yet they come in so many different styles! It almost doesn't even matter what's on top - although a belly-baring tank top is a sweet and sassy choice. Cool, yet oh so hot. But the key to it all is bare legs, from the feet all the way up to the top of the thigh.

Yes sir, legs are in. This is, no doubt, a fantastic time to be a leg man. And unlike the sultry sophistication of heels and stockings, bare legs are casual, everyday fare in the summer, and practically every hottie is sporting them - from the parks to the supermarkets to the local mall, you can see them everywhere! Between the glistening bikini bods and the long-legged ladies of the neighborhood, skin has never been so in. Goddess be praised!