If you read this blog, you'll have figured out that I'm a reality TV addict. I, like so many others I'm sure, find it fascinating to watch these shows that purport to portray 'real life' when we all know that having a camera in your face dramatically changes your behavior. Not to mention the editing and 'unscripted' scripting that goes on. Although they often show us the worst of human behavior, I do think that some reality shows can hold up a mirror for us to see what our society values - how are certain attitudes and behaviors portrayed in these shows?
One of the shows I watch religiously is America's Next Top Model. The show is diametrically opposite to everything I value, and yet I find it entertaining. But I think my love affair with that show may be coming to an end. I used to think that Tyra Banks was all right and had some decent values and was certainly entertaining to watch. Now that I've seen her talk show several times, my opinion of her has changed. On the premiere of the new season of Top Model, her attitude came out full force. For their photoshoot, the women (who are all over 18 but are always referred to as 'girls'), were asked to wear costumes that made them look like little girls and pose in a playground. In the background of all of the shots were three other women who were meant to portray 'bad girls' - one of them was pregnant, one of the them looked like a junkie etc. The idea, they were told, was to show how girls are losing their innocence. Tyra Banks told them that this is an important issue to her because she did a survey on her talk show that showed that 1 in 5 girls wants to be a teen mom and that teenage girls are 'out of control'.
So let's think about this. Tyra Banks left home and went to Paris to pursue modelling by herself when she was 16. Is that an innocent childhood? And more to the point is the fact that she is touting this idea of perserving the innocence of young girls when she has made her fame and fortune in an industry that capitalizes on the sex appeal of very young women. To get a foothold in modelling, girls really need to start in their mid-teens. 21 is considered old in the modeling world. They want very young girls and women working in the industry but they make up the 16 and 17 year-olds to look much older than they are and much more sexualized than they probably are. Talk about lost innocence! All of these ads end up in magazines and on TV for young girls to look at. Yet, we don't hear Tyra mention that the advertising and fashion industries are a major driver in the desire of teenage girls to look and act much older than they are.
The innocence she is attempting to portray is so idealized as to be laughable. She had these women in pigtails and short frilly dresses. It's such a narrow view of what a 'good girl' really is. I don't think very many of us wore pigtails and frilly dresses and played hopscotch in the playground every day. Sure, we may have done that sometimes, but we also studied math, played team sports, played music, hung out with our friends at the 7-11, talked about boys, flirted with boys (and girls), stole chocolate bars from the 7-11, felt lonely and depressed, snuck a taste of beer at a party, and maybe we had family lives that were pretty crappy and childhood was rough. No one has that kind of idealized childhood so why do we try to force girls to act like 'good little girls'? It's a standard that is not based in reality. And through that lens, a lot of behavior that is actuall pretty typical teenage behavior becomes 'bad'.
Girls are sexual beings. Tyra Banks of all people should understand that. Why are we so scared to let them be a little sexual? We portray images of sexuality all around them and then when, in real life, they start to let that out a little bit and feel their sexuality, we label them as bad girls and send them to counsellors to straighten them out. The whole thing just baffles me and I'm not the least bit surprised that so many girls are confused about sex and sexuality. I think if we could just allow girls a little room to be who they are - and that includes their sexuality - they might not feel so restricted and needing to break out and prove they can be themselves. If we acknowledge that girls are sexual and give them opportunities to express and explore that, they can take ownership over their sexuality and make decisions that make sense for them. It's so past time for us to stop treating teenaged girls like idiots with scary demons inside of them. Because the problem there is, when that's what they are told they are, that's exactly how they act.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Toy Reviews are Not All Equal
Nothing annoys me more than 'sex experts' who decide that they are also 'sex toy experts'. Even if a person is an actual sex therapist, that does not mean that s/he understands anything about toys. Sex and sex toys are two different things. So I get crazy when these 'experts' start talking about toys. Inevitably, people start calling me looking for these great toys and I have to try to explain to them that, no matter how much this expert raved about it, the toy is actually a piece of garbage. People are loathe to believe me because, hey, they saw that toy on TV. Shouldn't these people feel some sort of obligation to know what they're talking about.
Here are some prime examples:
Ok, Sue Johansen is an easy shot but I'm going to take it anyway. She does toy reviews often, in fact, she has a segment on her show for toy reviews. The first problem with Sue's reviews is that she willnever admit that she uses the toys - which she probably doesn't. It's not very informative or very genuine to simply talk about what 'your reviewer' thought of the toy. Why not bring that reviewer on? But even that isn't good enough. When they do have others on to review porn, they don't say anything at all. They don't tell you what is really in the movies, they just say whether they liked it or not, without even really saying why.
You can see some of Sue's toy reviews on oxygen.com. It's clear that she doesn't know anything about the toys. The one I particularly love is her review of a kit called the 'princess pleasure kit' which contains a toy from her 'Royal' collection. It's pretty clear that she's not even aware of the fact that the toy is from her line.
She gives a harness a great review even though it's got a horrible attachment mechanism, it's made of hard leather in a style that will clearly cut painfully into your inner thighs, and it has a nasty jelly rubber attachment.
Joy Davidson is another exmaple I've seen. Joy is a certified sex therapist and I actually respect her. She did a series of videos that you can find on her site and on youtube. Her toy session is laughable. She understands how toys work, but she doesn't know anything about what's a good toy and not. If you watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY0RSXLzXJ8&feature=PlayList&p=D560F571EE85BE93&index=8 , you'll see her demo the 'fluttering butterfly'. This is one of the worst toys I've ever seen. I actually have that toy in my bad toy box where it has been slowly melting to the point where it's almost disintigrated. Joy does show several items that are decent such as the Fukuoku, Liquid Silk, and a Sportsheets harness (minus the nasty dildo she's got in it). The problem is, she obviously doesn't know which is good and which is bad. You have to give people a little info on the toy itself, not just what it does.
Another great example is Laura Berman. I know, I take lots of shots at Laura Berman too but that's only because she's so out there. Laura Berman was on Oprah, again, several weeks ago. I missed it, but I've heard that she was promoting one of her toys. I know this becuase I had several requests for that toy. I can get Laura Berman's toys. And our policy here at the Tickle Trunk is that we will order toys for people even if we don't normally carry them. But I want people to be happy with their purchases and so I feel obligated to tell them that this Berman toy is a remake of the Hitachi Magic Wand. The Berman toy in question is made by California Exotics which is one of the biggest toy manufacturers in the world and produces mostly inferior quality plastic and jelly rubber toys. Why get that when you can get a Hitachi for the same price? It would be easy for me to bring in her toys because Laura's doing a great job of promoting them for me. But they aren't good toys. Again, the thought is there, the idea is good, but she doesn't know enough about toys to make sure that her toys are superior quality and to educate people about how to know that.
I have run across a great toy review site. It's a podcast called 'Sex is Fun'. One of my team members, Kristen, alerted me to this and it's fabulous. They review mostly top quality toys from smaller manufacturers and they really explain what the toy is all about. The reviewers use the toys themselves. They tell you what it's made of and what it can be used for and then they detail exactly how well they think it works. That is information you can actually base a toy purchase on! You can find sex is fun at sifreview.blogspot.com .
Here are some prime examples:
Ok, Sue Johansen is an easy shot but I'm going to take it anyway. She does toy reviews often, in fact, she has a segment on her show for toy reviews. The first problem with Sue's reviews is that she willnever admit that she uses the toys - which she probably doesn't. It's not very informative or very genuine to simply talk about what 'your reviewer' thought of the toy. Why not bring that reviewer on? But even that isn't good enough. When they do have others on to review porn, they don't say anything at all. They don't tell you what is really in the movies, they just say whether they liked it or not, without even really saying why.
You can see some of Sue's toy reviews on oxygen.com. It's clear that she doesn't know anything about the toys. The one I particularly love is her review of a kit called the 'princess pleasure kit' which contains a toy from her 'Royal' collection. It's pretty clear that she's not even aware of the fact that the toy is from her line.
She gives a harness a great review even though it's got a horrible attachment mechanism, it's made of hard leather in a style that will clearly cut painfully into your inner thighs, and it has a nasty jelly rubber attachment.
Joy Davidson is another exmaple I've seen. Joy is a certified sex therapist and I actually respect her. She did a series of videos that you can find on her site and on youtube. Her toy session is laughable. She understands how toys work, but she doesn't know anything about what's a good toy and not. If you watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY0RSXLzXJ8&feature=PlayList&p=D560F571EE85BE93&index=8 , you'll see her demo the 'fluttering butterfly'. This is one of the worst toys I've ever seen. I actually have that toy in my bad toy box where it has been slowly melting to the point where it's almost disintigrated. Joy does show several items that are decent such as the Fukuoku, Liquid Silk, and a Sportsheets harness (minus the nasty dildo she's got in it). The problem is, she obviously doesn't know which is good and which is bad. You have to give people a little info on the toy itself, not just what it does.
Another great example is Laura Berman. I know, I take lots of shots at Laura Berman too but that's only because she's so out there. Laura Berman was on Oprah, again, several weeks ago. I missed it, but I've heard that she was promoting one of her toys. I know this becuase I had several requests for that toy. I can get Laura Berman's toys. And our policy here at the Tickle Trunk is that we will order toys for people even if we don't normally carry them. But I want people to be happy with their purchases and so I feel obligated to tell them that this Berman toy is a remake of the Hitachi Magic Wand. The Berman toy in question is made by California Exotics which is one of the biggest toy manufacturers in the world and produces mostly inferior quality plastic and jelly rubber toys. Why get that when you can get a Hitachi for the same price? It would be easy for me to bring in her toys because Laura's doing a great job of promoting them for me. But they aren't good toys. Again, the thought is there, the idea is good, but she doesn't know enough about toys to make sure that her toys are superior quality and to educate people about how to know that.
I have run across a great toy review site. It's a podcast called 'Sex is Fun'. One of my team members, Kristen, alerted me to this and it's fabulous. They review mostly top quality toys from smaller manufacturers and they really explain what the toy is all about. The reviewers use the toys themselves. They tell you what it's made of and what it can be used for and then they detail exactly how well they think it works. That is information you can actually base a toy purchase on! You can find sex is fun at sifreview.blogspot.com .
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Science?
I'm spending my afternoon immersed in 'sex research'. I'm a member of the New View listserve which is a group of people who are interested in women's sexual health and are concerned about attempts to over-medicalize it. Through this wonderful listerve with all of these fabulous, and very knowledgeable people, I'm learning a lot about research on sex and sexuality and how it's conducted. Every few days, one of the members will send out a link to an article in a popular magazine, journal, or newspaper about some new sex research. At first glance, these articles seem like simple lifestyle news pieces - just quoting some new study that's come out. But I'm learning to take a much closer look at what these articles are really saying and the effect they might be having on us.
If we think that newspapers and magazines are really there to inform us, we are kidding ourselves. Most mainstream newspapers and magazines are there to sell ad space and they do that by getting readers. They get readers by finding content that will grab reader's attention. And believe it or not, a lot of sex researchers want the media's attention so they want to present their findings in a way that will appeal to the readers of the media. So guess what happens? A study that may have shown some interesting findings, that are complex and nuanced, and certainly cause for further research, gets boiled down to a 10 word headline and a 500 word article that's easy to digest. Why? Because the media don't think their readers want the whole, complex, nuanced story. They think they want something they can read on the toilet in 10 minutes and feel like they learned something valuable.
So a study that looked at 30 women and found that many of them reported greater sensitivity in a certain area in their vagina under certain circumstances becomes 'Sex Researchers Find the G-spot'. And in the case of this last one I read, a study which looked at physical and psychological arousal in both men and women, and resulted in rather complex results needing much study and interpretation, got boiled down to 'What Do Women Want?'. And even though the article was rather long, it focused mostly on what the researcher looks like and what she personally thinks, rather than what she actually found. So much more interesting to read than a bunch of data. The story concludes that we can never know what women want. Then why the study and why the article about it?
The problem here is that for most of us, mainstream media is the only regular access we have to sex research. Most of don't actively seek this stuff out. We don't read medical journals. The only time we see anything about sex research is when some study makes it into the papers. When we see it there, the study and the researcher, and usually the university s/he works for is cited. It makes the conclusions seem ever so scientific and authoritative. But those conclusions often don't appear in the actual study at all. They are simply headlines and sound bites put together by the person who sent out the press release, or by the person who wrote the story. You have to go and find the actual study to find out what it was really all about. A newspaper article might say that a given study showed that 40% of women can't have a vaginal orgasm (there have been several studies that have been reported as finding such a result). What the article doesn't say is that the study only surveyed 40 women. It doesn't tell you that those 40 women were just given a self-report survey to fill out. It doesn't tell you that the survey did not ask them detailed questions about what they considered the term 'vaginal orgasm' to mean. It doesn't tell you that the women were never given any kind of physical exam and never underwent any clinical testing to see if they were having orgasms. So really, what the study tell us is that 16 out of 40 women who took a survey we know nothing about said that they believed they didn't have vaginal orgasms. And yet women everywhere read that only 40% of women can have vaginal orgasms. Now we all start thinking that we have a problem just like these women and we need to do something about it. Inevitably, the story will include, or be followed up by, possible remedies for this problem that 40% of us are now deemed to have.
We have to be so very careful about what we accept as 'science' and 'fact'. Whenever I see these types of headlines in the news, I try my best to find the original study and find out what it was really all about. There are so many agendas going on in the field of sexual health research, especially when it relates to women and their behavior. We have to be very careful that what's presented to us in the media isn't simply a convoluted attempt to make us buy a drug, or a product, or a cosmetic procedure, or to try to make us act in a certain way. We are constantly being told that there is something wrong with us. And there is always someone waiting there with the cure.
If we think that newspapers and magazines are really there to inform us, we are kidding ourselves. Most mainstream newspapers and magazines are there to sell ad space and they do that by getting readers. They get readers by finding content that will grab reader's attention. And believe it or not, a lot of sex researchers want the media's attention so they want to present their findings in a way that will appeal to the readers of the media. So guess what happens? A study that may have shown some interesting findings, that are complex and nuanced, and certainly cause for further research, gets boiled down to a 10 word headline and a 500 word article that's easy to digest. Why? Because the media don't think their readers want the whole, complex, nuanced story. They think they want something they can read on the toilet in 10 minutes and feel like they learned something valuable.
So a study that looked at 30 women and found that many of them reported greater sensitivity in a certain area in their vagina under certain circumstances becomes 'Sex Researchers Find the G-spot'. And in the case of this last one I read, a study which looked at physical and psychological arousal in both men and women, and resulted in rather complex results needing much study and interpretation, got boiled down to 'What Do Women Want?'. And even though the article was rather long, it focused mostly on what the researcher looks like and what she personally thinks, rather than what she actually found. So much more interesting to read than a bunch of data. The story concludes that we can never know what women want. Then why the study and why the article about it?
The problem here is that for most of us, mainstream media is the only regular access we have to sex research. Most of don't actively seek this stuff out. We don't read medical journals. The only time we see anything about sex research is when some study makes it into the papers. When we see it there, the study and the researcher, and usually the university s/he works for is cited. It makes the conclusions seem ever so scientific and authoritative. But those conclusions often don't appear in the actual study at all. They are simply headlines and sound bites put together by the person who sent out the press release, or by the person who wrote the story. You have to go and find the actual study to find out what it was really all about. A newspaper article might say that a given study showed that 40% of women can't have a vaginal orgasm (there have been several studies that have been reported as finding such a result). What the article doesn't say is that the study only surveyed 40 women. It doesn't tell you that those 40 women were just given a self-report survey to fill out. It doesn't tell you that the survey did not ask them detailed questions about what they considered the term 'vaginal orgasm' to mean. It doesn't tell you that the women were never given any kind of physical exam and never underwent any clinical testing to see if they were having orgasms. So really, what the study tell us is that 16 out of 40 women who took a survey we know nothing about said that they believed they didn't have vaginal orgasms. And yet women everywhere read that only 40% of women can have vaginal orgasms. Now we all start thinking that we have a problem just like these women and we need to do something about it. Inevitably, the story will include, or be followed up by, possible remedies for this problem that 40% of us are now deemed to have.
We have to be so very careful about what we accept as 'science' and 'fact'. Whenever I see these types of headlines in the news, I try my best to find the original study and find out what it was really all about. There are so many agendas going on in the field of sexual health research, especially when it relates to women and their behavior. We have to be very careful that what's presented to us in the media isn't simply a convoluted attempt to make us buy a drug, or a product, or a cosmetic procedure, or to try to make us act in a certain way. We are constantly being told that there is something wrong with us. And there is always someone waiting there with the cure.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Doctor Prescribes Warm Water for Orgasms
So last week I watched 'The Doctors' for the first time. If you're not familiar, this is a show that features several physicians (one of which was on the bachelor and, in my opinion, made the worst choice in bachelor history - but that's another story) talking about health related issues. It's produced by Dr. Phil McGraw and his son Jay - so that should give you a clue. I have heard many people in the last few months rave about 'The Doctors' and I got a message from Dorrie Lane, the maker of the Wondrous Vulva Puppet, that the puppet was going to be featured on last Monday's show. So I watched. But I was only able to catch the last half so either I missed the Vulva Puppet or I got the wrong day. What I did catch was very strange and very confusing.
The 30 minutes that I saw was a segment on 'The Most Shocking Health Care Trends'. One of them was the growing trend of taking children for beauty spa treatments. Clearly, years of selling sex toys for a living has upped the ante on what I consider shocking. Who really cares if someone takes their kid to the spa? It's their money to waste. What was weird to me was that this 'shocking' trend was obviously included so as to plug the spa for kids - which was featured very prominently. In fact, there were no less than 6 blatant ads for products or companies in this 30 minutes portion of the show. It's not an informational show, it's an infomercial.
I digress, the point here is that they did talk about something 'shocking' related to sex. Number one of the most shocking healthcare trends was the 'Orgasmatron'. This is a device that is surgically implanted into the back and sends electrical impulses into the sacral nerve, thereby creating the sensation of having an orgasm. 'The Doctors' talked about this for about 45 seconds - just long enough to make several lame jokes. They did not explain much at all about what the orgasmatron is, how it was developed and who it is best for. One of 'The Doctors' said that it is only for women who are able to have an orgasm. WTF? That made no sense. I think what he meant was that women who have severe nerve damage will not benefit from the device. But that's not what he said. His comment makes it sound like there are women who are just flat out not able to have an orgasm and this this orgasmatron that makes you have an orgasm will only work for women who already can have them. He also said it was a last resort option. At $23,000 a pop, I would guess so.
The second doctor (Travis, the bachelor) said that there are many options to try before doing something like this. Good point Travis! His solution. 'There are lots of stimulating creams available on the market'. Great idea Travis! Do you really think that if you have such trouble with sexual response that you're considering surgically implanting a device, a tingling lube is going to do the trick instead? These doctors clearly don't have the slightest clue what orgasm really is and how it works. Warming or tingling lubes don't make you have orgasms, they just make you feel all warm and tingly.
The third doctor's idea was the best. She suggested warm water. I can't, for the life of me, figure out what you're supposed to do with that water. My co-worker, Amber, thought perhaps she meant warm water shooting out of a handheld shower head directly onto the clitoris. In that case I can understand. That can definitely cause an orgasm.
I went and googled the 'Orgasmatron' and here's what I found out:
- it is, indeed, a device that was invented to help restore feeling for those with nerve damage and spinal cord injury
- the stimulation of sexual pleasure was a side effect found by many recipients and now the makers of the thing are looking at marketing it for that purpose
- the device does not allow to you have orgasms when you're having sex, rather, when it's turned on, it emits eletrcial impulses into the sacracal nerve and this can send a signal to the brain that's the same as the sensation of having an orgasm - this is not at all a device that will help you have an orgasm during sex, it does it all on it's own
I don't think there's anything wrong with what essentially amounts to an extremely expensive sex toy. Obviously, I'm all for sex toys. It's just that 'The Doctors' made it sound like something very different than what it actually is. And that's the problem with most of these shows. When they have to boil everything down to 45 second sound bites, the information is invariably ripe for misinterpretation.
If you think the Orgasmatron might be right for you, you'll need to google it like I did. It's not a toy we'll be carrying in the store.
The 30 minutes that I saw was a segment on 'The Most Shocking Health Care Trends'. One of them was the growing trend of taking children for beauty spa treatments. Clearly, years of selling sex toys for a living has upped the ante on what I consider shocking. Who really cares if someone takes their kid to the spa? It's their money to waste. What was weird to me was that this 'shocking' trend was obviously included so as to plug the spa for kids - which was featured very prominently. In fact, there were no less than 6 blatant ads for products or companies in this 30 minutes portion of the show. It's not an informational show, it's an infomercial.
I digress, the point here is that they did talk about something 'shocking' related to sex. Number one of the most shocking healthcare trends was the 'Orgasmatron'. This is a device that is surgically implanted into the back and sends electrical impulses into the sacral nerve, thereby creating the sensation of having an orgasm. 'The Doctors' talked about this for about 45 seconds - just long enough to make several lame jokes. They did not explain much at all about what the orgasmatron is, how it was developed and who it is best for. One of 'The Doctors' said that it is only for women who are able to have an orgasm. WTF? That made no sense. I think what he meant was that women who have severe nerve damage will not benefit from the device. But that's not what he said. His comment makes it sound like there are women who are just flat out not able to have an orgasm and this this orgasmatron that makes you have an orgasm will only work for women who already can have them. He also said it was a last resort option. At $23,000 a pop, I would guess so.
The second doctor (Travis, the bachelor) said that there are many options to try before doing something like this. Good point Travis! His solution. 'There are lots of stimulating creams available on the market'. Great idea Travis! Do you really think that if you have such trouble with sexual response that you're considering surgically implanting a device, a tingling lube is going to do the trick instead? These doctors clearly don't have the slightest clue what orgasm really is and how it works. Warming or tingling lubes don't make you have orgasms, they just make you feel all warm and tingly.
The third doctor's idea was the best. She suggested warm water. I can't, for the life of me, figure out what you're supposed to do with that water. My co-worker, Amber, thought perhaps she meant warm water shooting out of a handheld shower head directly onto the clitoris. In that case I can understand. That can definitely cause an orgasm.
I went and googled the 'Orgasmatron' and here's what I found out:
- it is, indeed, a device that was invented to help restore feeling for those with nerve damage and spinal cord injury
- the stimulation of sexual pleasure was a side effect found by many recipients and now the makers of the thing are looking at marketing it for that purpose
- the device does not allow to you have orgasms when you're having sex, rather, when it's turned on, it emits eletrcial impulses into the sacracal nerve and this can send a signal to the brain that's the same as the sensation of having an orgasm - this is not at all a device that will help you have an orgasm during sex, it does it all on it's own
I don't think there's anything wrong with what essentially amounts to an extremely expensive sex toy. Obviously, I'm all for sex toys. It's just that 'The Doctors' made it sound like something very different than what it actually is. And that's the problem with most of these shows. When they have to boil everything down to 45 second sound bites, the information is invariably ripe for misinterpretation.
If you think the Orgasmatron might be right for you, you'll need to google it like I did. It's not a toy we'll be carrying in the store.
Monday, January 5, 2009
John Gray is from Mars, or some other planet than Earth.
I'm reading a great book about the self-help movement that devotes a chapter to the illustrious John Gray. It contained some excerpts from his book 'Mars and Venus in the Bedroom' which I thought were so laughable, I had to check them out.
So here, for entertainment purposes only, are some great quotes that I've pulled from 'Mars and Venus in the Bedroom' (which you can read vast excerpts of at harpercollins.com).
"Men need sex. Women need romance."
"For a woman to grow in sexual fulfillment, she primarily needs to feel emotionally supported in the relationship."
"Women enjoy conversation most when they are not required to get to the point right away...this is a perfect metaphor for how women enjoy sex."
"A woman is turned on when she feels her partner is confident that he knows how to fulfill her. A man is turned on when he feels a woman has confidence as well, but in a different way.....If a woman seems to confident that she knows how what to do him, it can possibly be intimidating....her greatest ability to fulfill him is through helping him be successful in fulfilling her."
"In polarity sex partners take turns consciously using these polarities to increase desire and pleasure. One partner gives while the other receives." guess who gets to go first? according to Gray, it's always the man receiving first
"A man wants to find a formula that will work each time so that he can relax in sex, feeling confident that he knows what he's doing."
"Trust is essential for a woman to continue getting turned on by her partner. "
"At the south end of the labia is the vagina which is the canal where the man enters her body. (because that's the only thing it's for). At the north end of the labia is the clitoris. Because it is so small and because he does not have one, a man doesn't realize how important it is for a woman to touch her there. As a general rule, it is very important for a man to remember to go north before he goes south." (better hope he can tell north from south - what if she's standing on her head?)
"When she wears silky pink or lace, she is ready to surrender to sex as a romantic expression of loving vulnerability......A cotton T-shirt with matching panties may mean she doesn't need a lot of foreplay."
I have go now, I think I just peed myself laughing.
So here, for entertainment purposes only, are some great quotes that I've pulled from 'Mars and Venus in the Bedroom' (which you can read vast excerpts of at harpercollins.com).
"Men need sex. Women need romance."
"For a woman to grow in sexual fulfillment, she primarily needs to feel emotionally supported in the relationship."
"Women enjoy conversation most when they are not required to get to the point right away...this is a perfect metaphor for how women enjoy sex."
"A woman is turned on when she feels her partner is confident that he knows how to fulfill her. A man is turned on when he feels a woman has confidence as well, but in a different way.....If a woman seems to confident that she knows how what to do him, it can possibly be intimidating....her greatest ability to fulfill him is through helping him be successful in fulfilling her."
"In polarity sex partners take turns consciously using these polarities to increase desire and pleasure. One partner gives while the other receives." guess who gets to go first? according to Gray, it's always the man receiving first
"A man wants to find a formula that will work each time so that he can relax in sex, feeling confident that he knows what he's doing."
"Trust is essential for a woman to continue getting turned on by her partner. "
"At the south end of the labia is the vagina which is the canal where the man enters her body. (because that's the only thing it's for). At the north end of the labia is the clitoris. Because it is so small and because he does not have one, a man doesn't realize how important it is for a woman to touch her there. As a general rule, it is very important for a man to remember to go north before he goes south." (better hope he can tell north from south - what if she's standing on her head?)
"When she wears silky pink or lace, she is ready to surrender to sex as a romantic expression of loving vulnerability......A cotton T-shirt with matching panties may mean she doesn't need a lot of foreplay."
I have go now, I think I just peed myself laughing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
