This week we had a discussion about communication skills within a sexual relationship. It was interesting in and of itself. What better way to illustrate the existence of infinite levels of communication skills than asking 30 students their thoughts about communicating sexual needs and concerns with their partners?
The book touches on a couple of main reasons that it is difficult to talk about sex: the vulgarity that may be associated with sex, and the irrational beliefs that as long as the relationship exists, the sex is what it is. When we brainstormed and listed methods to enhance sexual communication in the face of these (and other) adversities, the results, along with their logic, were interesting to say the least.
An insightful item on the list of things couples can do to open up their communication was indirect communication, namely instant messaging or text messaging. I thought that this was a very valid suggestion. A lot of us have in one instant or another said something via typed media that we'd not be nearly as comfortable stating vocally. In my head, I can see two people having a discussion in the same room using two laptops. It wouldn't even have to be planned. It could begin as playful banter which could ultimately be steered in any given direction.
What made this more interesting for me is the firm opposition that one person in our small group took. She was absolutely closed to the idea of having a discussion about sex in any medium but the flesh. She couldn't necessarily justify this stance; she had her platform and she was sticking to it. It struck me as a very black and white stance on communication in any degree and I found that surprising. One of the primary lessons to be learned in communication is that the skills and methods are likely to vary greatly from person to person.
We made a list of 10 things that couples can do if they are having trouble communicating about sex, and the second (THE SECOND!?!) item on the list was to get professional help. Perhaps that's just the easy answer in this case, but if every couple who felt any degree of discomfort discussing their sex life with one another went running to a third party for help, I can assure you I would be pursuing a most fruitful career in marriage counseling.
The next most interesting entry came in the suggestion that when lips are zipped on the sex front, patience is a virtue! If we can't talk about it now, we'll just talk about it later. sigh.....
Having patience through a growing process is one thing, but having patience in the 'we'll talk about it a few years from now, when we're more ready to do so' screams imminent disaster in my hardly humble opinion.
The other listed items were to get talking, don't be pushy, listen, take baby-steps, trust activities, play a game, and my personal contribution as well as favourite: drink 2 bottles of wine.
Hardly anyone would argue that both communication and sex are prevalent foundations of a successful relationship. The stronger the two, the stronger the relationship. Keeping this in mind, it becomes pretty clear that the two of them (sex and communication, that is!) will need to find a way to work together in order to prosper. Kind of like a good relationship, you know?
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
How Facebook Exponentiates Propinquity
Last Wednesday we discussed attraction with regards to beauty, non-physical and long term, the latter led to a discussion of propinquity, a term denoting nearness. In our context, we talked about how propinquity can be a factor in one's selection of a long-term partner.
Frankly I believe that we could spin a wheel on any given relationship as we try to determine the roots of it, but propinquity would certainly be one piece of the pie. For instance: how did you two end up together?
"We went to the same church."
"She sat next to me in elementary school."
"Our parents were friends."
We've heard it all before! Ah yes, propinquity certainly has its place on the wheel of relationship fortune, but here's the interesting bit: Facebook geometrically increases the factor of propinquity in our lives.
Congratulations Robert Nellis, you are my example! You see for one such as yourself who moved around from town to town in that military lifestyle that propinquity (at the time) was not on your side. You had not a constant social padding of fellow students, churchies, neighbours and the likes. No opportunity to select a long term partner delivered by propinquity, for you were stripped of this propinquity.
Robert Jr, however, might move to a different location every year or two, but using his social networking prowess he is able to take his relationships with him everywhere he goes. He can choose as time goes on which relationships deserve more of his time and attention, and perhaps one of them might even be his partner despite the fact that they only spent their year of 3rd grade in any reasonable proximity to her! Anyone who spent some time traveling and meeting new people everyday knows what I'm talking about!
My wife and I attended high school together, although we don't believe we ever took a single class together. When we graduated, we went in completely different directions. 6 years later, we became 'friends' and started e-mailing... phoning... visiting... and the rest is history. Social networking, it would appear, does not only maintain propinquity; it creates it as well.
And so we see how social networking has enhanced propinquity: by giving people the option to stay close to one another without physically being so. But good, old-fashioned, down-home propinquity deserves a toast as it is responsible for many treasured relationships; it just has a tendency to be forgotten in our electronic day and age. There is no need to mourn classic propinquity - just think of love as a book: you can visit your neighbourhood book den or shop it out on amazon. Sometimes it's amazing where the most seemingly negligible details will lead us...
Frankly I believe that we could spin a wheel on any given relationship as we try to determine the roots of it, but propinquity would certainly be one piece of the pie. For instance: how did you two end up together?
"We went to the same church."
"She sat next to me in elementary school."
"Our parents were friends."
We've heard it all before! Ah yes, propinquity certainly has its place on the wheel of relationship fortune, but here's the interesting bit: Facebook geometrically increases the factor of propinquity in our lives.
Congratulations Robert Nellis, you are my example! You see for one such as yourself who moved around from town to town in that military lifestyle that propinquity (at the time) was not on your side. You had not a constant social padding of fellow students, churchies, neighbours and the likes. No opportunity to select a long term partner delivered by propinquity, for you were stripped of this propinquity.
Robert Jr, however, might move to a different location every year or two, but using his social networking prowess he is able to take his relationships with him everywhere he goes. He can choose as time goes on which relationships deserve more of his time and attention, and perhaps one of them might even be his partner despite the fact that they only spent their year of 3rd grade in any reasonable proximity to her! Anyone who spent some time traveling and meeting new people everyday knows what I'm talking about!
My wife and I attended high school together, although we don't believe we ever took a single class together. When we graduated, we went in completely different directions. 6 years later, we became 'friends' and started e-mailing... phoning... visiting... and the rest is history. Social networking, it would appear, does not only maintain propinquity; it creates it as well.
And so we see how social networking has enhanced propinquity: by giving people the option to stay close to one another without physically being so. But good, old-fashioned, down-home propinquity deserves a toast as it is responsible for many treasured relationships; it just has a tendency to be forgotten in our electronic day and age. There is no need to mourn classic propinquity - just think of love as a book: you can visit your neighbourhood book den or shop it out on amazon. Sometimes it's amazing where the most seemingly negligible details will lead us...
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Sexy Inc.
It is the eve of a new week in Family Studies 322, so I thought I'd better chime in on this lovely Sunday afternoon while the Sexy Inc. film is still relatively fresh in the tupperware container that is my mind.
Sexy Inc. stated the obvious to say the least - too bad it wasn't ripe with solutions. I'm not scolding this video; it is important to isolate these problems so that we (namely us budding apprentices of the teaching profession) are assuredly aware of what is happening in this great big world of ours.
The point is clear: our society has become ludicrously over-sexualized. Sexuality in the media has not so much oozed but cascaded into a shockingly young demographic. The film showcases this point and offers only the most subtle solution: don't buy in.
A simple formula in the creation of this problem is evident. This entire issue is money driven. (Insert company here) is not invested in the socio-political implications of their methods. (Company) wants to make money, and they are simply doing what they need to do to make money. It's just simple business. We are a sexually driven society who responds to sexualized ads, tv shows, music, everything! As we continue to flock into The Gap (pardon my singling out of The Gap) to buy the t-shirt that the model on the poster wasn't even wearing, The Gap will continue to advertise with topless models.
In Sexy Inc. we see a group of (very) young children responding to a topless model in a newspaper advertisement by American Apparel. As an arts & craft project that most of us did NOT get to do in school, the kids color some clothes onto the model, and each of them mails their masterpiece back to American Apparel. I thought that was a very pro-active approach. A LOT of people would need to ignore a large business in order for that business to notice, and even then they may be at ends as to why this is happening. The colored model approach could hardly be more clear to he or she who opens that envelope at the headquarters of AA; how much more clear would it be if a few dozen of us did that? A few hundred? Thousand?
Corporations will continue to do whatever they deem necessary in the business of money-making. That leaves it up to we, the consumers, to decide just what that consists of. We must:
1. Think critically for ourselves.
2. Teach our children and students to do so as well.
Easy, right?
Gender Marketing (Cue at 5:45 through 7:45)
This little clip is a good picture of how big of a difference there is between recognizing that this is a problem and actually doing anything about it. The parents aren't in much of a position to solve the problem, but they certainly understand how big of a problem it is when their daughter wants to conform. Digging a little deeper, we see that this isn't as simple as allowing or disallowing your children to do something. It is about raising them to be comfortable with who they are regardless of what everyone else is doing, wearing, saying, etc.
A friend of mine posted this video (below) on Facebook at about the same time that we had watched Sexy Inc. in class. I can picture myself being tortured or brainwashed by being forced to watch this video over and over. I watched a short 'making of' feature about it and it's far more constructed than I thought it was; however, this makes it more powerful for me because everything looks and sounds like what we experience in public and on TV every day!
Wonderfully enough, this is one ad in a series of a few by Dove products. I commend Dove for addressing this whole youth/beauty issue and literally, in a big way, putting their money where their mouth is.
Beauty Pressure
Sexy Inc. stated the obvious to say the least - too bad it wasn't ripe with solutions. I'm not scolding this video; it is important to isolate these problems so that we (namely us budding apprentices of the teaching profession) are assuredly aware of what is happening in this great big world of ours.
The point is clear: our society has become ludicrously over-sexualized. Sexuality in the media has not so much oozed but cascaded into a shockingly young demographic. The film showcases this point and offers only the most subtle solution: don't buy in.
A simple formula in the creation of this problem is evident. This entire issue is money driven. (Insert company here) is not invested in the socio-political implications of their methods. (Company) wants to make money, and they are simply doing what they need to do to make money. It's just simple business. We are a sexually driven society who responds to sexualized ads, tv shows, music, everything! As we continue to flock into The Gap (pardon my singling out of The Gap) to buy the t-shirt that the model on the poster wasn't even wearing, The Gap will continue to advertise with topless models.
In Sexy Inc. we see a group of (very) young children responding to a topless model in a newspaper advertisement by American Apparel. As an arts & craft project that most of us did NOT get to do in school, the kids color some clothes onto the model, and each of them mails their masterpiece back to American Apparel. I thought that was a very pro-active approach. A LOT of people would need to ignore a large business in order for that business to notice, and even then they may be at ends as to why this is happening. The colored model approach could hardly be more clear to he or she who opens that envelope at the headquarters of AA; how much more clear would it be if a few dozen of us did that? A few hundred? Thousand?
Corporations will continue to do whatever they deem necessary in the business of money-making. That leaves it up to we, the consumers, to decide just what that consists of. We must:
1. Think critically for ourselves.
2. Teach our children and students to do so as well.
Easy, right?
Gender Marketing (Cue at 5:45 through 7:45)
This little clip is a good picture of how big of a difference there is between recognizing that this is a problem and actually doing anything about it. The parents aren't in much of a position to solve the problem, but they certainly understand how big of a problem it is when their daughter wants to conform. Digging a little deeper, we see that this isn't as simple as allowing or disallowing your children to do something. It is about raising them to be comfortable with who they are regardless of what everyone else is doing, wearing, saying, etc.
A friend of mine posted this video (below) on Facebook at about the same time that we had watched Sexy Inc. in class. I can picture myself being tortured or brainwashed by being forced to watch this video over and over. I watched a short 'making of' feature about it and it's far more constructed than I thought it was; however, this makes it more powerful for me because everything looks and sounds like what we experience in public and on TV every day!
Wonderfully enough, this is one ad in a series of a few by Dove products. I commend Dove for addressing this whole youth/beauty issue and literally, in a big way, putting their money where their mouth is.
Beauty Pressure
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Sexism and Gender: I get it now!
I was writing a blog just moments ago to give permanence to my gripe with the definition of sexism which was: the prejudgment that because of gender, a person will possess certain negative traits. I immediately took issue with this definition because it seemed to be placing the word 'gender' where we were led to believe the word 'sex' ought be. As I frustratedly collected thoughts to convey my argument I realized that 'sex' and 'gender' are more interchangeable.
* I will ignore the phenomena of intersexuality and hermaphrodites in this post, as that is an entirely different can of worms. For the duration of this blog, people are either male or female.
Sexism is prejudgment based on gender?? That can't make any sense! Sex is male or female; gender is how that sex behaves on the basis of his or her sex, so shouldn't sexism be a prejudice based on whether a person is male or female? Generally this is what happens in sexism, but this is where I see the light: sex feeds gender.
Example:
Sam needs a heavy box lifted onto the top shelf, but Sam has a broken arm. Sam looks to the curb and sees his friends, Bob and Eileen, eager to help. Bob and Eileen are married, weigh the same, share the same height, and they spot each other at the gym 3 times a week - who will Sam ask to lift his box onto the shelf? Is he immediately a sexist because he asks Bob? Is he overcompensating for sexism in society by asking Eileen to do it?
If Sam asks Bob then we'd better be prepared to discuss the sexist implications of his choice. He probably meant no harm, he simply needed to make a choice between the man and the woman, and something was programmed in his head that this was a job for a man. If we asked Sam if Eileen was capable of lifting the box he'd surely say she was; they are good friends and he knows that she keeps herself in good shape.But alas, the gender roles have already been determined: anything categorized as rugged or strenuous is associated with men, and anything dainty or tender falls into the female category.
We will always make decisions based on sex, and this is entirely due to gender roles that have been in establishment since the dawn of (humans). The trick, I suppose, is to not look at these gender roles as boundaries, and our society has come a long way in encouraging people to step outside of their gender roles and determine for themselves how they would like to be defined by being the person whom they wish to be defined as.
To clarify: sexism is indeed a prejudice based on gender, in that if we see a male, we assume certain qualities and traits about him to be true, based on the gender roles which have defined what a man is. But that doesn't mean that he doesn't know how to sew a button to a shirt or make the meanest bowl of broccoli soup that you ever did taste.
Furthermore, let us look at gender roles in a similar light to certain romance languages which prescribe any object as masculine or feminine. A lamp for instance is a feminine word, but a man need not feel emasculated when he uses one. And this is what we strive for: a world where any man or woman can fulfill any gender role they wish (granted they are able to do so...). Outwardly sexist individuals will continue to exist, but tolerance for them is decreasing by the day. When we look back in time, even only decades or years ago, we can see that we have made positive progress on this front - good for us!
Sexism is prejudice based on gender? Darn rights it is!
* I will ignore the phenomena of intersexuality and hermaphrodites in this post, as that is an entirely different can of worms. For the duration of this blog, people are either male or female.
Sexism is prejudgment based on gender?? That can't make any sense! Sex is male or female; gender is how that sex behaves on the basis of his or her sex, so shouldn't sexism be a prejudice based on whether a person is male or female? Generally this is what happens in sexism, but this is where I see the light: sex feeds gender.
Example:
Sam needs a heavy box lifted onto the top shelf, but Sam has a broken arm. Sam looks to the curb and sees his friends, Bob and Eileen, eager to help. Bob and Eileen are married, weigh the same, share the same height, and they spot each other at the gym 3 times a week - who will Sam ask to lift his box onto the shelf? Is he immediately a sexist because he asks Bob? Is he overcompensating for sexism in society by asking Eileen to do it?
If Sam asks Bob then we'd better be prepared to discuss the sexist implications of his choice. He probably meant no harm, he simply needed to make a choice between the man and the woman, and something was programmed in his head that this was a job for a man. If we asked Sam if Eileen was capable of lifting the box he'd surely say she was; they are good friends and he knows that she keeps herself in good shape.But alas, the gender roles have already been determined: anything categorized as rugged or strenuous is associated with men, and anything dainty or tender falls into the female category.
We will always make decisions based on sex, and this is entirely due to gender roles that have been in establishment since the dawn of (humans). The trick, I suppose, is to not look at these gender roles as boundaries, and our society has come a long way in encouraging people to step outside of their gender roles and determine for themselves how they would like to be defined by being the person whom they wish to be defined as.
To clarify: sexism is indeed a prejudice based on gender, in that if we see a male, we assume certain qualities and traits about him to be true, based on the gender roles which have defined what a man is. But that doesn't mean that he doesn't know how to sew a button to a shirt or make the meanest bowl of broccoli soup that you ever did taste.
Furthermore, let us look at gender roles in a similar light to certain romance languages which prescribe any object as masculine or feminine. A lamp for instance is a feminine word, but a man need not feel emasculated when he uses one. And this is what we strive for: a world where any man or woman can fulfill any gender role they wish (granted they are able to do so...). Outwardly sexist individuals will continue to exist, but tolerance for them is decreasing by the day. When we look back in time, even only decades or years ago, we can see that we have made positive progress on this front - good for us!
Sexism is prejudice based on gender? Darn rights it is!
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Kloosterblog
Hats off to the young and aging Matt Kloosterman, who verbalized the idea of tapping out some study notes into the blog, if not for nothing then to cement the information furthermore.
What did I learn in Family Studies 322 to this point? Well, amongst other things I learned the following:
Habermas' paradigms are threefold:
Have we all noticed that we don't so much talk about the body itself, but rather how it is mediated through the social, cultural and political worlds? I sure have.
Like a sound, feminism comes in waves:
1st wave - early 1900's, known as the suffrage movement, spurred by want of the right to vote (for women!)
2nd wave - swingin' 60's, liberation movement, wants less media objectification of women
3rd wave - post feminism, Madonna is queen, shifts degradation into empowerment
4th wave - in the now, more spiritual, aiming to unite, interfaith dialogue, peace
In class, we watched a few clips from a few movies (or a play):
Masters and Johnson's 4 phases:
Helen Singer Kaplan was (is?) a sex therapist who attacked the sexual response cycle from a 'where are things going wrong?' standpoint:
Basson leads us to talk about relationships and how they affect the sexual response cycle. Factors include love, intimacy and emotional connection.
Masturbation is a bomb of a topic. As much as it is stressed to be a normal and acceptable part of sexual development in any individual, it still carries social proscriptions and prohibitions. Some argue that it is empowering, perhaps because one is taking control of his own sexuality. Learning to love one's self!
Piaget, Piaget, Piaget... with his schemas (our world of knowledge), his assimilation of new information (the same old stuff in a different pile) and his accomodation (rethinking what we know to incorporate new information into our schema)...what a guy!
Sex assignment is the labelling of a newborn as either a male or female, aka gender assignment. This gets tricky when hermaphrodites and intersexuals (pseudohermaphrodites) enter the picture, as there can be some ambiguity there.
Plato's 'The Symposium' was a dialogue on the nature of love.
The origin of the typical male/female relationship comes from mythical Greece's primordial hermaphrodite which was separated by the gods - the male half and the female half naturally strive to re-unite.
Thanks for reading, but you really didn't have to!
What did I learn in Family Studies 322 to this point? Well, amongst other things I learned the following:
Habermas' paradigms are threefold:
- Empirical Analytic - scientific, logical, prediction & control
- Critical Theoretic - political, sociological
- Situational Interpretive - case by case basis, not theoretical or abstract, as per lived experience
- Be skeptical - accept no opinion as fact
- Be cautious in drawing conclusions from evidence - (teens/hip-hop/sexually active scenario)
- Consider alternative interpretations of research evidence - correlation is not always causation
- Consider evidence upon which conclusions are based - scientific or anecdote?
- Examine definition of terms - what exactly do we mean by ______?
- Examine assumptions or premises of arguments - similar to #5
- Do not oversimplify - things are not often quite so simple
- Do not overgeneralize - ie. do not stereotype
- Formulate a research question
- Reword research question into a hypothesis (a precise prediction of the outcome)
- Test the hypothesis
- Draw conclusions
Have we all noticed that we don't so much talk about the body itself, but rather how it is mediated through the social, cultural and political worlds? I sure have.
Like a sound, feminism comes in waves:
1st wave - early 1900's, known as the suffrage movement, spurred by want of the right to vote (for women!)
2nd wave - swingin' 60's, liberation movement, wants less media objectification of women
3rd wave - post feminism, Madonna is queen, shifts degradation into empowerment
4th wave - in the now, more spiritual, aiming to unite, interfaith dialogue, peace
In class, we watched a few clips from a few movies (or a play):
- Vagina Monologues - My Vagina is Angry! Revisiting the many injustices afforded to so many vaginas
- Private Dicks - A documentary about men, penises, and their shared experiences with eachother
- Kinsey - a portrait of the interview tactics and groundbreaking cultural implications within Kinsey's work
- Everything ...Sex - An entirely different look at the inner workings of a male moving from arousal through orgasm. Kudos, Woody Allen, kudos.
Masters and Johnson's 4 phases:
- Excitement - erection, lubrication, vasocongestion, myotonia
- Plateau - a little more vasocongestion and myotonia, leading up to...
- Orgasm - contractions, ejaculation
- Resolution - back to the pre-aroused state. Male will need some time before he's ready again.
Helen Singer Kaplan was (is?) a sex therapist who attacked the sexual response cycle from a 'where are things going wrong?' standpoint:
- Desire - problems due to low or absent desire for partner?
- Excitement - physical problems with erection or lubrication?
- Orgasm - premature ejaculation or orgasmic dysfunction?
Basson leads us to talk about relationships and how they affect the sexual response cycle. Factors include love, intimacy and emotional connection.
Masturbation is a bomb of a topic. As much as it is stressed to be a normal and acceptable part of sexual development in any individual, it still carries social proscriptions and prohibitions. Some argue that it is empowering, perhaps because one is taking control of his own sexuality. Learning to love one's self!
Piaget, Piaget, Piaget... with his schemas (our world of knowledge), his assimilation of new information (the same old stuff in a different pile) and his accomodation (rethinking what we know to incorporate new information into our schema)...what a guy!
Sex assignment is the labelling of a newborn as either a male or female, aka gender assignment. This gets tricky when hermaphrodites and intersexuals (pseudohermaphrodites) enter the picture, as there can be some ambiguity there.
Plato's 'The Symposium' was a dialogue on the nature of love.
The origin of the typical male/female relationship comes from mythical Greece's primordial hermaphrodite which was separated by the gods - the male half and the female half naturally strive to re-unite.
Thanks for reading, but you really didn't have to!
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
On Orgasms
Our discussions of theorists and reasearchers all seem to share a common tie with the pedastaled orgasm.
Maybe this is the best time for me to mention that even though we speak of Masters and Johnson's 4 phases of sexual response as interchangeable between male and female, the resolution phase can often be forgoed by the recently climaxed female. I say this to disclaim any perceived ignorance (on my part) in the words to follow.
Everything to do with sex is leading up to the orgasm, and according to Freud it would preferably be a vaginal one. Freud hasn't yet been presented (in our class) in a manner in which we'd be led to take him seriously. Perhaps there is more to Freud (and his Penis Envy theories) than meets the eye?
Anyway, about the orgasm. I see that we have explored the views of Masters and Johnson which are fairly clinical, Kaplan who employs a more psychological approach, Basson who calls in the gray area of intimacy by way of recognizing that sex/achieving orgasm is not entirely black and white, and, well, ...Freud.
I can appreciate where Masters and Johnson are coming from. The biology of it is all well and good to know. Informative, we might say! If I had to choose, however, I would say I'm a fan of Basson's work. The nature of the relationship in which an orgasm is taking place has a huge effect on everything to do with the sexual response cycle; whether it be a lengthy union or even a swingin' cat one met at the martini lounge that very evening, the relationship between participants is simply too vast to be cast aside amongst considerations.
And so, if someone is having an orgasm twice a day they may be quite interested to hear of all the vasocongestion and myotonia that is taking place in his body. Subsequently it is she who has run the gauntlet with her long term partner in search of the elusive orgasm who shall brush aside the work of Masters and Johnson and turn to Kaplan or Basson to see where things might be going awry.
Not an avid church-goer am I, but I do remember an evening youth service I went to in Calgary a number of years ago. The pastor even spoke ebonically; way cool. He was in the context of pre-marital sex (as memory serves...) and he assured us "God wants you to have orgasms." What a novel perspective - of course he does!!! But I'd never thought of it that way before. Why would our bodies be blessed with the ability to experience them if otherwise? So the orgasm tree is ripe for the picking - and ladies: don't worry about that Freud guy.
Maybe this is the best time for me to mention that even though we speak of Masters and Johnson's 4 phases of sexual response as interchangeable between male and female, the resolution phase can often be forgoed by the recently climaxed female. I say this to disclaim any perceived ignorance (on my part) in the words to follow.
Everything to do with sex is leading up to the orgasm, and according to Freud it would preferably be a vaginal one. Freud hasn't yet been presented (in our class) in a manner in which we'd be led to take him seriously. Perhaps there is more to Freud (and his Penis Envy theories) than meets the eye?
Anyway, about the orgasm. I see that we have explored the views of Masters and Johnson which are fairly clinical, Kaplan who employs a more psychological approach, Basson who calls in the gray area of intimacy by way of recognizing that sex/achieving orgasm is not entirely black and white, and, well, ...Freud.
I can appreciate where Masters and Johnson are coming from. The biology of it is all well and good to know. Informative, we might say! If I had to choose, however, I would say I'm a fan of Basson's work. The nature of the relationship in which an orgasm is taking place has a huge effect on everything to do with the sexual response cycle; whether it be a lengthy union or even a swingin' cat one met at the martini lounge that very evening, the relationship between participants is simply too vast to be cast aside amongst considerations.
And so, if someone is having an orgasm twice a day they may be quite interested to hear of all the vasocongestion and myotonia that is taking place in his body. Subsequently it is she who has run the gauntlet with her long term partner in search of the elusive orgasm who shall brush aside the work of Masters and Johnson and turn to Kaplan or Basson to see where things might be going awry.
Not an avid church-goer am I, but I do remember an evening youth service I went to in Calgary a number of years ago. The pastor even spoke ebonically; way cool. He was in the context of pre-marital sex (as memory serves...) and he assured us "God wants you to have orgasms." What a novel perspective - of course he does!!! But I'd never thought of it that way before. Why would our bodies be blessed with the ability to experience them if otherwise? So the orgasm tree is ripe for the picking - and ladies: don't worry about that Freud guy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)