cliterature

Flying, Sex-Free

 Sex pundit Violet Blue has an interest post objecting to airlines blocking pornography from in-flight WiFi.  Whilst I understand her point I am not sure it is correct to say the move is based on the idea that “online porn consumption makes us into drooling lunatics who no longer know right from wrong”.  I certainly concede the point that airport shops are happy to sell not only erotic novels but also pictorial skin mags, but I think the corporate cave-in probably has more to do with the idea that plane seats are about the size of a battery chicken cages, and most of us are larger than the average chicken. 

It is impossible to eat, without a game of dueling elbows, or to get out to go to the toilet without getting one’s groinal area within an inch or two of various people’s noses.  On the whole I am happy to discreetly read an erotic story, but pictorial and sound elements are innately shared with those nearby–especially of you are in the centre of a row.  And at this point in time pornography is not something to be shared with random members of the public.  So,  as long as the filters were sensible (relating to explicit pictorial elements) I wouldn’t really have a problem with them, and the more gynecologically-inclined skin mags could go too.  Just because the people pushing for the filters are prudes doesn’t necessarily make something a bad idea.

 Sharing Fantasies

“FOXSexpert” Yvonne K. Fulbright has a guide to help people think thought whether they should share their sexual fantasieswith their partner, and if so, how.  I find it interesting that she jumps in with some pretty hard core examples like breaking the law, abuse of power and, um, nuns.  But I support part of the point is to think really hard about whether you should share your sexual foibles at all.  I have to say the advise is substantial but the coy title (FOXSexpert), the cheesy picture (hellooo cleavage+bad lighting) and in-text advertising really detract from this article.

Sex is Good For You

While I understand sex pundits to some extent, I am surprised that the Times of India makes an article out of re-reporting Dr. Fulbright’s idea of sex as a form of exercise or diet.  What seems to be the original article is in fact here, and given that it seems to be the sole source for the Times article, I think the Times could at least have provided a direct link rather than just scarping the idea and throwing in a name check. In a more general sense the idea that sex is good for your overall health and well-being seems to be doing the rounds again.  For example this piece name-checking Dr Debra Herbenick of the Kinsey Institute.

And the sex is good for you message also seems to ge getting a religious spin.  For example this article quoting Patricia Weerakoon (”Why would God have created a clitoris if he didn’t want us to have orgasms?”) and this one quoting moral theologian Lisa Fullam (”We are incarnate beings, and that feel for incarnation calls us to be the best bodies we can be . . . sex brings us more than any other experience into our bodily nature”).

As a final thought: interesting isn’t it that the sexuality experts and pundits of the current era are almost universally female?  Is this because female sexuality is in the need of greatest help?  Or the female perspective is more complex and interesting?  Or female experts have greater traction because they are seem as less threatening?  Or the readership of these things is largely female and prefers same-sex advice?  In any case the message out there in the online media is that sex is here, sex is good, and women are the experts.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS