On Zach and Fidelity

Fidelity is an issue that I think about a lot. People have widely differing ideas of what being in a relationship may mean, and - whether or not they discuss these with their partner - may have vastly different concepts of what is okay to do with other people when one is inside a relationship. I have maintained a pretty strict definition for going out: either we are, or we aren't. This used to be a source of contention with women with whom I'd be involved, as I used to be less than clear about my definitions, and let girls think what they would. This ended with girls thinking we were in a more serious relationship than I thought we were, which rarely ended happily.

This changed when I met a girl named Christine. I don't remember her last name (it was a long time ago), but if I did, I would hunt her down and thank her. After she and I had spent a decent amount of time together, she thought we were, if not already officially dating, certainly on that track. I had no such conceptions, and eventually the situation came to a head. Rather than letting me be self-righteous and assume I'd done nothing wrong, she berated me. I had led her on, and that wasn't okay. Not only was she disappointed I didn't want to be with her, she wouldn't have gotten physical with me had she known I didn't think we were dating. I think even as she let me have it, I retained my self-righteous view, but over the next couple of weeks, it set in. Ever since, I've gone to painstaking lengths to make sure that all the women in my life understand where I'm coming from, and what our relationship is. Luckily, this conversation happened my freshman year of high school, not when I'm 25.

I don't have any pictures of Christine, but I'm pretty sure she looked like this.

The issue of whether I'm officially dating a girl or not is especially important with me, as I have what I'm sure are weird conceptions of fidelity. When I'm going out (in the traditional exclusive way) with someone, I'm consistently faithful. I've never cheated on a girlfriend, and I'm never planning on doing so. For whatever reason, I'm quite staunch on this. I've been with physical with multiple girls at the same time (not the EXACT same time - that's still on the to-do list), but not when it's been understood that we're in an exclusive relationship. The concept hardly even makes sense to me. If I want to be with someone else so badly that I'm willing to jeopardize (even if you may think you're going to get away with it, the risk is there) my relationship with my girlfriend, or so badly that I'm willing to potentially hurt my girlfriend, then I probably need to get out of the relationship anyway.

That said, I've had a curious inconsistency that I've never really sorted out. Though I'll never cheat on a girl, and have consistently gotten furious at my friends who have cheated, for some reason I historically have rarely had a problem with girls cheating on their boyfriends with me. I'm not 100% sure why this is, though it may have something to do with where I've always felt the blame lies when cheating occurs. While of course it's true that it takes two parties to cheat, I don't think it's fair to mitigate any of the blame just to blame the third person. It's difficult for me to think that if Johnny cheats on Sally with Mary, that Johnny gets off any easier just because Mary had to say yes to the whole thing. But the point is, that's not to say there's no blame on Mary.

Though admittedly, sometimes cheating is hilarious.

All the same, I've still let girls cheat on their partners with me. Admittedly, this hasn't happened in at least a couple years, and I don't know if I'd let it happen again. But the fact remains it's happened before. Knowing that I'd never have done it if the boyfriend had been a close friend, I think it may be simplest to simply chalk it up to selfishness. But why I let myself do this and never cheat, I still don't know.

I post this not to convince anyone of a particular line of thought, but just to give my thoughts on one subject, and a little more background on myself. More than anything, I'm interested in hearing other people's thoughts about fidelity. Not just about whether you've cheated or not, but about the concept of cheating, and of relationships (especially at a young age, which are often considered to be frivolous). So tell me what you think!

Images via theinsider.com and funnychill.com

On Masculinity

As one might glean from the title, Getting Off is not just about pornography. There is another message that Jensen promulgates throughout the book.

Simply put, Robert Jensen hates masculinity.

This is, in essence, a slightly more radical version of what people have been arguing for a long time: machismo is stupid. Men that are quick to anger, quick to fight, never (admit they) cry and objectify women is no longer the always-desirable male archetype. That said, it is still a huge, huge presence in our culture. Jensen hates this, and has good reason to. A popular opinion on the matter is that we need to change the entire meaning of the term to not include the traditional machismo silliness. This is the camp in which I sit. One can be a man and talk about feelings. One can be a man and not play sports or lift weights. Most importantly, one can be a man and be a feminist. This is a concept that makes a lot of sense to me. However, he has a different take on the solution.

Bill Kaulitz: a man for the ages.

What Jensen proposes is not the restructuring of the term, but instead the abolition of it. He thinks the term itself is toxic, and only serves to feed into the gender roles that have plagued us thus far. He thinks we need to literally remove the term from our lexicon if there's any chance for us to move past this as a culture. I have a few basic problems with this. I think that there are certainly a lot of things that do in fact separate the genders, and that's okay. It is not a step forward to pretend that men and women are the exact same in every way. So to get rid of the term masculinity in the hopes that we will all just be considered humans seems not only improbable, but not even particularly desirable.

More than disagreeing with the concept for theoretical reasons, however, I think it's simply not a reasonable goal. Namely, that I don't want to do it. I like being a man, and I like being able to think of myself as masculine. If someone like me doesn't want to let go of that title, even though I dislike all of the things traditionally associated with it, I can't imagine most other men comfortable with the idea either. There's simply no way we can get rid of the concept of masculinity entirely, and it is a hindrance on the movement to work towards that end.

Something tells me this guy won't want to discard the term "masculine".

Men? Do you want to give up the term? Women? Do you care either way?

Images via sodahead.com, circusfreaks.org

Recycle Your Sex Toys!

In case you were wondering, you can recycle your sex toys and get money back.

http://www.recyclemysextoy.com/

Tell me that's not nifty.

Interviews, Take 2: The Mysterious Nate

I have great friends.

My friend Nate came over to my house last night to hang out and have a drink with Claire and I. He didn't know I had a blog, much less one about sex. When asked if I could interview him for it, he said yes. I told him basically nothing else, but, good man that he is, he jumped right in.

It was a fireside chat not unlike this one.

Here's the (somewhat condensed, for your sake) transcript:

Tell me about the first time that you had sex.

I had just gotten back from a...I was the president of the National Honors Society at my school, so I had organized this weekend field trip to Seattle, and my girlfriend was in said group. So we went up [to Seattle], and the night we came back, I ended up hanging out at her house for a while. We had done other things, you know, start out slow. We were both first timers. You know, we had given each other oral sex before. So, we were, you know, hanging out, doing some stuff, and, uh...alright, I'm just gonna tell it how it is. I was kind of weirdly sneaky about this, because I felt like she didn't want to. So it was all hot and steamy, and I was like "Yo, I want you so bad. Can I just put my penis in you, not necessarily have sex with you, because I know you're not okay with that." So, that happened, then, you know, I took it where it needed to go. So, I lost my virginity there. But then, we were still hanging out that night, and it went on a bit later, once again.

How old were you?

I was sixteen.

And how long had you two been dating?

We had been together for probably...six months.

What do you think makes for a good sexual encounter with someone?

In few or many words?

Claire: I just did a twenty five minute interview.

Yeah, I mean, I have five questions, and my interview with Claire was 25 minutes. I wouldn't worry about talking too much.

I feel like it needs to - initially, like as soon as you start into the making out - it needs to feel really hot, and high-energy, and intense. And then it moves on from there, and clothes are taken off, sort of in a fury. Then, uh, it usually just starts out fairly intimate, and super, almost animalistic at times. Sort of just coming back to the instincts. Then as it progresses you can start getting a little creative with it, moving onto some different positions, different things.

Do you feel that there are any things that you expect to come from a sexual encounter that you don't always get?

Yup. It seems like....well, the only times I feel like I am not getting something that I wanted to get is if I'm trying to have sex in a previously not-excellent mood. Not necessarily angry sex, but you know, your mind isn't clear. You're thinking about shit. And then usually by the end of it, it's like, you kinda do it to relax yourself, relieve yourself. Similarly, it can be a bad situation if you're trying to sleep with someone to get out of loneliness, but it doesn't feel right.

Are there things you don't expect from someone in a physical encounter, but when they do come up, you're always pleasantly surprised?

Um...yes. Lately, I've been getting kind of into light biting. Not like, on my junk, cause, I'm not into that. But uh, I don't expect that in any capacity. And I, previous to two weeks ago, would never have even considered that, because I'm way too gentle with people most of the time. I don't know, it's kind of hot. I'm into that, on a light level. If it's like, creepy goth level where they want you to bleed, that's not my thing. Um...yeah. I don't know.

Well, that's a perfectly legitimate answer.

Well, also, though - and this is a bit more explicit - chicks that play with your asshole during sex. Kinda hot sometimes. Sometimes it's really, really not.

Has it ever specifically been not hot?

Yes.

*This is when Claire, Nate and I have an extended conversation about anal play. This will, I promise you, be the subject of a talk in a future post.*

If you don't get it, don't think too hard about it.

What about yourself would you want your partner - in general, but also in bed - to notice about you?

I feel like...alright, I've only had one girl that I've slept with, for like two years straight, which was my last real girlfriend. And I feel like in that kind of situation, once I can get into the stride of things, the thing Im' kind of proud of is kinda like...I feel like i've got some sweet moves.

Claire: You've gotta get more specific.

Just like, in the moment, crazy, good shit that i do. It's like, we're doing it missionary, let's turn over here, put your leg up over me like this, and do that all within one stroke.

So, flexibility and spontaneity?

Yeah. Or like, picking her up and fucking her up against the wall. That's kinda hot.

Claire: That's way hot. Spread the word, guys.

Tell me about your masturbation and porn habits.

To be completely honest, I've sort of had a recent lack of porn and masturbation, which was weird to me. Until a couple weeks ago, I hadn't had sex with a girl in a year. So that was new to me, given the last three years. With my last girlfriend it was, you know, at least once a day. Recently, though, I've started masturbating regularly again. Usually like...a little less than every other night. And porn habits: I usually watch porn with it, not always. Sometimes I just pull up the old memory cinema. When I watch porn - I'm sure this is part of the question you want involved in there - it's usually anal sex or deepthroat blowjobs. That's what gets me off.

Is there anyone that you find attractive against your better judgment?

Cate Blanchett. Straight up. Fucking gorgeous.

Claire: That's not against your better judgment, that's-

Well, I don't hear a lot of people saying she's smokin' hot, and I think she's smokin' hot. Stone cold fox.

And Nate. Will you have sex with me right now?

I would.

Yeah?

Yeah.

You wanna go?

Yeah.

Claire: Guys, no!

Images via about.com and buttersquash.net

On Pornography

I read a book this week.

Image via amazon.com

Whatever you may think about the contents of this book*, I will say this: it has an awesome cover.

This is a book all about why porn is bad for our culture. I've read a lot of anti-porn literature, but most of it was linked from pro-porn sources, and was not particularly well thought-out. I figured as a porn-watching feminist, I owe it to myself to at least seriously consider the negative effects of porn on people, and on our culture as a whole. He also talks about why we need to end our entire conception of masculinity, but I'd like to tackle that as a separate post.

Jensen makes quite a few claims in his book; but I'd like to tackle the overarching theme, which I at least somewhat agree with, rather than nitpick things I don't. The overall point is this: there is a lot of porn that is expressly misogynistic, and a lot of that subset is violently so. While certainly not the source of, it certainly promotes a specific (misogynistic and objectifying) view of women that is already extremely prevalent in our society. I agree with this idea, but with many caveats. First and foremost, he talks strongly against much of the dialogue, or dirty talk, that happens in much of porn. "You're a dirty little whore, aren't you? You love taking that big dick.", etc. Needless to say, this is misogynistic at a basic level. However, it is extremely important to discuss that many people like doing this with their partners with whom they are in long-term, loving relationships. Certainly there are people who will see porn that says these things about women, and will take them at face value. There are people that really do think women are just out there to get fucked, and this type of porn (which is extremely prevalent) reinforces that idea in a very visceral way. The problem arises when Jensen refuses to take into account that many people think it's hot to talk like that, or even to be rough with each other, while not meaning it in a serious way. I personally know couples that talk that way to each other, with the dominant or submissive role changing on a nightly basis. It's not about the reality in these circumstances, it's about saying dirty things to each other in bed.

This is just as true for physical roughness. For many people, you can not only be a little rough, but can slap, bite, claw, etc. much harder than the average person would consider to be fun. This is not only acceptable, but a really important part of many people's sexual lives and identities. The idea that a couple can't be mentally and physically denigratory to each other in the bedroom, with full consent of both parties, and have it be a fun and loving time for all, is ignorant and uninformed. It is just simply untrue.

That being said, I do know men who have less-than-equal opinions of women, and tend to objectify women in their life. Some of these men enjoy this exact time of porn, where the girls are degraded both verbally and physically. This is something that troubles me deeply. There is also a separate problem of women not necessarily enjoying exactly what they signed up for at a particular shoot, but still going through with it. Needless to say, the director is not going to cancel the shoot because the girl looks a bit hesitant: his only concern is making money. These situations are somewhat rare, and people in the industry (actors and directors alike) talk about them as an unfortunate things, but the fact is that these scenes are still released, and some people still really enjoy them.

He discusses in great detail all the possible connections of ways porn may lead to sexual violence against women. It was by far the most comprehensive, impressive gathering of information on the topic. However, he readily admits that it is very difficult to judge most of these things, and he is quick to dismiss studies that say anything other than his point of view. After seeing the most convincing information I've seen to this end, I remain unconvinced. At worst, I think porn is one of countless other ways men are taught to objectify women in our society. It is not the first, not the last, and not the worst.

*and you, the public, have some interesting things to say about it. Amazon.com tags this book, predictably, with terms such as "gender", "sex", and "feminism". However, also among the top tags are "utter garbage" and "one of the most intellectually dishonest writs of our time". Who knew that was even an option?

Things To Say

I'll be posting a new article either today or tomorrow. In the meantime, This is for you. Click to see the whole picture (it's worth it).

Image via incredimazing.com

On Language

Language is something that interests me greatly. I find it interesting because it has so many idiosyncrasies, and there is always more to learn. I also find it interesting because language shapes the way we think. In a basic way, the words we use play a role in the way our sentences are formed, and take a part in what we say. This is of course a basic concept, but it has far-reaching consequences.

There are a couple of words that I want to talk about today. The first of these is "slut". I think most people agree it's not a positive word. But I don't just dislike how it's often used, I dislike that it exists. There is no set definition for a slut, no benchmarks to pass to become one. It's subjective, based on the person making the judgment. The word says, in essence, "This person does something that I don't do." Or, more correctly, "This person does something that I do, just more often." It's easy to imagine a girl who has slept with, say, 5 guys, call a girl who has slept with 10 a slut. One can also imagine a girl who has had sex with one guy calling the first girl a slut.

Typical slut in her natural habitat.

My problem with the term is of course not that it's ambiguous. My problem is that the word only functions as a judgment on something that is, firstly, not an inherently immoral or bad thing, and second, is none of their Goddamned business. A girl who sleeps with (or hooks up with, or flirts with, etc.) a lot of guys does not need a title. A person's sex life should not be used against them to define who they are as a person.

There's also the issue that the term is inherently sexist. Guys do not get called sluts. If a guy hooks up with every girl he meets, he's a pimp, not a slut. This is because men are expected to want to fuck everything that moves, and if a large number of women will let him, he is to be revered. There are plenty of reasons to dislike the term, but it doesn't help that it's it's sexist to boot.

The other word is one that people rarely think of as being a negative force in our society, but I feel it fills a very similar role as "slut". This word is "virgin". This word presents a similar problem, just in the opposite direction. Virginity is seen as this pure state that someone can never get back to once they've been tainted. This brings to mind these things called purity balls, in which young girls go to a dance with their father and pledge their purity (read: virginity) to them. This is a concept probably worthy of its own post, it's so messed up.

Typical virgin in her natural habitat.

I don't have a problem with people waiting to have sex. I DO have a problem with people being judged on when they decide to have sex, and to label someone based on how much sex they have is inherently problematic. Think about the usage of the words virgin and virginity next time they come up. Are they ever used in a way other than to categorize people based on their sexual experiences? If it is used to that end, is it actually beneficial in any way?

Interviews, Take 1: Yours Truly

In an attempt to provide some sense of cohesion to this blog, I'm going to be interviewing people with a somewhat consistent set of questions. As these are pretty personal questions, it only seems fair that I'd answer them myself first.

This is what Wikipedia says an interview looks like.

Away we go.

So, you ridiculously good looking young man-

Oh, stop it.

You stop looking so good. Alright, alright. Tell me about the first time you had sex.

It was my freshman year in college. I had been dating the same girl for about a year. Due to a really really stupid doctor she had, we thought she had an STD, so we weren't planning to have sex, unless way, way down the road we got married. One day when I was down in Eugene, she called me to tell me that she had gone back to the doctor (a year and a half after she was told she had an STD) and found out she didn't have one. This was on a Wednesday. She came down Friday, and we had sex that night. It was in my dorm room, to Massive Attack.

What makes for the most successful sexual encounter with someone?

Oh, I could write a book. The short version? Comfort, communication, generosity and attentiveness.

What do you assume comes with a sexual encounter that you don't always get?

Feedback. Not a running commentary, and not a play-by-play. Just little nudges in the right direction. This feels good, that doesn't, et cetera. It's always frustrating when I can't get a read on what a person likes.

Are there things that you don't expect, but always pleasantly surprise you?

A hand on the chest. For some reason, when a girl puts her hand on my chest, I absolutely melt.

What about yourself (would you hope/do you want) your sexual partner take notice of in particular?

Well, for the most part, that I try and do all of the things that I previously said make for a good experience. I guess barring that, probably my dedication to making sure both of us have a good time.

Porn usage? Preferences? Masturbation habits?

It depends on whether I'm in a sexual relationship or not, of course. I'm not at the moment, and i'd say I probably masturbate on average two or three times a week. I definitely have phases where it's a lot more or less consistent than that, but I think that's a pretty accurate rough guess. I nearly always masturbate to porn. I don't really watch porn unless I'm masturbating. As for porn preferences, it varies a lot depending on mood.

Is there someone who you find attractive against your better judgment?

Pamela Anderson. But like, still. Not just twenty years ago. I don't understand it. Also, this woman:

God knows why.

Will you have sex with me right now?

Yeah dude. Let's blow this joint and go have some fun. I know just the place.

Love Languages

There exists a sort of ethos about ways people give and receive affection. It was pioneered by a dude named Gary Chapman, but has since been usurped for all sorts of purposes. He called these different ways the five love languages. In his book that promulgates the love languages, he insists that everyone has one or two that they react most strongly to, though all are good. While this is of course not a fool-proof doctrine, it's something I've kept in mind in relationships I've been in since I heard about it, and it's actually been extremely beneficial. To wit:

Touch - this can be a high five, it can be sex, or anything in between. The type of touching is (usually) not the important part, mainly that it's there.

Talk - telling someone how you feel. For some, it doesn't matter how much you SHOW that you care about them, they need to hear you SAY that you do.

Time - making time for the one you care about. For these people, it's important that if you're busy, you make sure they know you're making an effort to create time for them.

Gifts - once again, this is not about the size of the gift. This is sometimes misconstrued as being a trait of materialist people. It's not. It's about having a physical manifestation of someone having thought about you, and cared enough to buy/make something for you.

Service - this one's a little weird, and doesn't work for all relationships. The idea is basically that you help out with chores around the house.

Service is an important exception because what I like about the other four is that they can be applied to all relationships: family, friends, co-workers, lovers.

I arranged these in the order I think of them, as it's the order in which they're most important to me. Those who know me will attest that I touch people almost inappropriate amounts, and constantly tell my friends and loved ones how wonderful they are. Because I react so strongly to Touch and Talk, though, it's important for me to remember that not everyone does. If I'm in a relationship with someone who is a Time or a Gifts person, it would be easy for them (even with all of my hugs and compliments) to feel slighted. This concept opened my eyes in a big way. I am very intent on making sure my loved ones know they're important to me, and to realize that I may not be doing it in a way that will get through to them was worrisome. I've now gotten in the habit of making this a conversation I have with people within the first few times I hang out with them, partially because I find it fascinating, and partially because it's great knowing the best way to communicate with someone early on.

So think about these. For some of you, which languages you speak may jump out at you, like they did with me. For some of you, it may take some thinking. Do it anyway. It's good for you. Talk about it with your partner. Talk about it with your friends. Maybe don't talk about it with your co-workers. That's a little weird.

On Desire

Blogger Remittance Girl recently posed a question to her readers asking what one does when writing erotic fiction aimed towards males. Or, more succinctly, "The essence of male arousal is pretty well documented, but what is the essence of male desire?"

Being a male, one would assume that I'd have a rough idea. However, this is much easier said than done. So we look to the experts. Unfortunately, science has been more interested in the somewhat more elusive problem of female desire. I think one can help shed light on the other, though, so I'll speak to that first.

There is a book that I am convinced was written specifically for me, and is one I will probably reference many times in the future. I am speaking, of course, of Mary Roach's Bonk. This book is teeming with interesting experiments and facts, but there's an especially pertinent one. An experiment was done with both men and women wearing glasses that tracked their eye movements while watching porn. This led to a revealing, though possibly not surprising result.

First, the no-brainer: straight men watching straight sex watch the women. They watch their faces, and they watch their naughty bits.

Interestingly, however: straight women watching straight sex watch the women, too. They watch the men too, but for the most part, only their faces. It is perhaps not surprising that women don't want to stare at dick the entire time, but that women chiefly watch women's bodies and men's faces may give one insight into how the female sense of desire works. The main theory for this is that women are aroused more than anything by being attractive and being wanted. They look at the women, thinking "look how seductive and attractive she's being", and at the men's faces, thinking "look how much he wants her". As a feminist, the latter of these poses a bit of a conundrum. I don't like the idea that women (or men, for that matter) have to base their feelings of arousal on how much the other person wants them. This, to me, creates a sense of women only being able to be sexually aroused if she's doing what her man wants. That sounds awful. For me, I'm not even convinced that another person should even have to enter into the equation. I like the thought of a woman, upon passing herself in the mirror before getting dressed in the morning, gets turned on enough that she tends to her desire then, making her late for some assignation.

At the same time, though, if this holds true for both partners, it is a slightly different story. I think there's something beautiful about two people enjoying sex mainly because they know how much their partner enjoys it.

This brings us back to the original question: what is the essence of male desire?

And that, dear readers, I'll have to save for next time. In the meantime, what do YOU think?

More To Love

It seems imprudent to make my first post be about something not directly related to sex, but such is the fickle mind of a sex-crazed male. What I'd like to talk about instead is that new reality show, More To Love. I'm sure you've seen the ads. For those uninitiated, this show is basically a re-hash of The Bachelor, but with fat women.* This, in and of itself, does not create a problem, other than the original problems with The Bachelor (which are legion, but will not be enumerated here). The problem exists in the light in which these women are constantly portrayed. From little more than the trailer, we learn that we aren't intended to view these women as individuals that may be interesting humans, but instead as Fat People, with little to distinguish themselves from one another. Women are interviewed not on their politics, their life ambitions; they are asked about their struggles with weight. We see countless shots of them crying, despairing over the worry that no one will ever find them attractive. They are are treated ostensibly with sympathy, but the end result is making these women look desperate and hopeless.

And while the women on the show are put in such an unflattering light, we hear them exalting the male who actually finds them attractive. Admittedly, it's rare to find someone who, on national television, will declare outright his love for overweight women. But these women are so impressed that he's willing to deign to be with the women on the show, who are, on average, one hundred pounds lighter than him. Commended? Maybe. Deified? I think not.

Having fat women on TV at all, and having at least one male saying he finds these women attractive, is a step. The next step will be to treat these women like people, not like fat people.

* "fat" is, in fact, not seen as a negative term in fat-positive circles. It is merely a descriptor. Taking the word back and all that. Almost, but not quite, entirely unlike porchmonkey in Clerks 2.

This is Your Sex on Zach

Welcome to Zach on Sex, a blog about sex, love, dating, sex, and sex. Zach, your primary author extraordinaire, is not, in fact, the author of this first post, as starting any endeavor on the note of shameless self-promotion is not really his game. So I, Claire, a friend and admirer, am here to get the ball rolling and tell you this:

have you ever had sex?

do you hope to have sex in the future?

do you ever stay up at night pondering fatty sex/golden showers/condom etiquette/vaginal dryness/threesomes/stealing your best friend's girl/being your best friend's girl/pregnancy/feminism/your parents' sex lives/ambiguous erections/the meaning of it all?

Us too. Welcome to Zach On Sex.