Search Results: Dad And Son

You are browsing the search results for dad and son

Scott Daddy, Part 2 – Podcast #105 – 03/04/09


Hey sex fans,

We’re back with my friend and colleague, Scott Mallinger, a.k.a. Scott Daddy; the BDSM nasty_pig_chaps2-credit_325x490journalist, lecturer, leather titleholder and Dom extraordinaire, don’t cha know.  This, of course, is Part 2 my of my chat with Scott in this podcast series called Sex EDGE-U-cation.    This series of interviews takes a look at the world of fetish sex, kink and alternative sexual lifestyles.  It touches on topics both familiar and exotic.  And we’ll be chatting with prominent educators, practitioners and advocates of unconventional sexual expressions and lifestyles from all over the world.

If you somehow missed Part 1 of this amusing yet provocative discussion look for last week’s podcast, #103 on Dr Dick’s PODCAST PAGE at the top of my site.  Or simply use the search function; type in the key words: “podcast #103”.  Don’t forget to include the # sign.

Be sure to visit Scott Daddy at his website HERE!

Scott and I discuss:

  • How he began his career as a Dom.
  • His public lectures, demonstrations and presentations.
  • Working with both men and women.
  • Mentoring newbees to the scene.
  • His sexual heroes.

dd2 st_andrew_338x450



Check out The Lick-A-Dee-Split Connection. That’s Dr Dick’s toll free podcast voicemail HOTLINE. Don’t worry people; no one will personally answer the phone. Your message goes directly to voicemail.

Got a question or a comment? Wanna rant or rave? Or maybe you’d just like to talk dirty for a minute or two. Why not get it off your chest! Give Dr Dick a call at (866) 422-5680.


Look for all my podcasts on iTunes.  You’ll find me in the podcast section, obviously. Just search for Dr Dick Sex Advice. And don’t forget to subscribe.  I wouldn’t want you to miss even one episode.

Today’s Podcast is bought to you by:


Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen…and Gentlewomen


Look for my new

Product Reviews!


Hey sex fans,

It’s Week 4, and the final week, of our Holiday Extravaganza.  Did you somehow miss Week 1, 2 or 3 of this lollapalooza?  Shame on you!  Check out Reviews #25, 26 and 27.  You’ll be so glad ya did.

The Dr Dick Review Crew has been workin’ overtime gettin you these reviews and now all our naughty parts are sore as all get out.  Thank god this is the last week; we need a break, don’t cha know!

This week’s Review Crew include:

  • Jack & Karen — Reviews #17, 18, 25, 27
  • Joy & Dixie— Reviews #6, 12, 16, 17, 18, 23, 27
  • Glenn & Hank — Reviews #4, 16, 17, 18, 23. 24, 27
  • Gina & Kevin — Reviews #4, 13, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 27
  • Ken & Denise — Reviews #11, 16, 25
  • Jada — Reviews #14, 16, 20

First up Ken & Denise introduce us to a beautiful wooden insertable from Hans at Hardwood Dildos.  I’m a big fan of Hans’.  He is more than a craftsman; he’s an artist.  He really knows his wood and his woodies!  We have just this one dildo to review, but his site is virtually overflowing with ingenious designs.  When you visit, be sure to tell him Dr Dick sent you.

Apple Wood Dildo $99

Ken:  “I was hoping I would be one of the lucky chosen ones to review one of the great 433a.jpgwooden dildos we’ve featured during our Holiday Extravaganza.  I lucked out!  Denise and I have a real beauty.”
Denise:  “That is so true.  Unfortunately, our Apple Wood Dildo doesn’t come already named, like the ones reviewed earlier in this series.”
Ken:  “Well, it’s only unfortunate if you’re not clever enough to come up with name all on your own.  I’ve christened ours Peter…for obvious reasons.”
Denise:  “I stand corrected.  Maybe I need to be punished.  😉
Ken:  “You’d like that, wouldn’t you?  Just you wait till we get home, young lady!”
Denise:  “Ohhh, Daddy!”
Ken:  “We seem to be veering off topic.  Back to our beautiful Hardwood Dildo.  It is made of Apple wood, a fine-grained, dense wood, which has a very fair color, kinda like maple or cherry.  Apparently, the wood comes from trees pruned in Oregon.”

Read more of this review here

Gina & Kevin introduce us to a couple of lovable toys for the big kid in all of us. These come from the good people at Big Teaze Toys. Dr Dick gives a bunch of extra points for the delightful names. You go Big Teaze!

I Rub My Duckie Bondage $25.99

Gina: “If a company can make me smile and make me cum at the same time, they win my heart. Now my heart belongs to Big Teaze. I Rub My Duckie Bondage is just one of the great Collector’s Series duckies available from Big Teaze Toys. You have to see the other! Makes me giggle just visiting the site.”irubmyduckie.jpg
Kevin: “I got such a kick out of this. And speaking of kicks; this little bugger is mighty powerful.”
Gina: “Bondage
Duckie has a permanent place in our bathroom. It is always in reach. There is nothing better than a waterproof vibe. I love to get off in the tub.”
Kevin: “It’s a real conversation piece too. It even comes with its own set of
Duckie-sized handcuffs. What a hoot! Guests always comment on our fashionable BDSM Duckie. Little do they know.”

Read more of this review here

I Rub My Wormie Pink Travel Size $22.99

Kevin:  “The I Rub My Wormie we have is the travel sized one.  That makes is a bit irubmywormie.jpgsmaller than the regular size.  It make an excellent butt plug.”
Gina:  “Or Pussy plug! I Rub My Wormie has a, ergonomic bend in his neck to reach your G- or P-spot.  It has an easy-grip body so he won’t wiggle out of your hands.”
Kevin:  “Oh baby, Oh baby, you make me so hot!!  Don’t forget the 3-speeds of vibration.”
Gina:  “It actually is the perfect toy to travel with.  Airport security will think you are carrying a baby’s toy.  If they only knew.

Read more of this review here

Now Jada gives us the finger, as it were. This is a clever first offering from a new Canadian company — Fun To Have.

Fun Finger $20.00

Jada: At first I thought this was some kind of gag. I mean Fun Finger looks like something you’d funfinger-016.jpgfind on one of those prank websites. It’s basically a big golden thumb. Fun Finger is soft and flexible. It has a multi-speed vibrator that is adjusted on the base of the finger. It’s made in China of TPR (Thermoplastic Rubber), which is non-toxic, but anyone allergic to latex will not be able use this. I’m not a big fan of Chinese made products, especially nowadays, but this one seems harmless enough.

I did like the unique shape — the cocked thumb. It’s perfect for G-spot stimulation. I wouldn’t, however, recommend it for prostate stimulation. There’s nothing to hold on to at the base and it could easily slip in your bum and disappear. And that would very unpleasant indeed.

Read more of this review here

Our favorite perv Review Crew members — Joy & Dixie and Glenn & Hank tackle some very interesting devices from Rachel’s Pleasures.

G–Spotter $16.20

G–Spotter $16.20

Joy & Dixiejp440.jpg

Dixie: “This is our second go around with these sorts of products. Joy and I, Glenn and Hank and others did a whole series on some of the products from Sportsheets. You can find those reviews by searching for the word ‘Sportsheets’.”
Joy: “Dixie and I prefer Rachel’s product line to the other. For one thing, we found them more comfortable.”
Dixie: “I hope this doesn’t sound petty, but we also like Rachel’s packaging better. It’s more fun and it isn’t so blatantly heterosexual.”
Joy: “Basically, the
G–Spotter is a device that one attaches to the bottom’s ankles so the top can maneuver the bottom’s legs with more ease. The bottom can hold the strap herself or the top can hold it and move it from side to side.”

Read more of this review here

Cumfy Cuffs And Cumfy Cuffs Extensions Kit $22.50

Glenn & Hank introduce us to the Cumfy Cuffs And Cumfy Cuffs Extensions Kit .jp125.jpg

Glenn: “Hank and I agree with Dixie. We also like Rachel’s packaging better than the Sportsheets packaging. I guess it’s a gay thing!”
Hank: “In fact, we liked everything about the Rachel’s line better. We agree with the gals, it’s a more comfortable setup”
Glenn: “Not that the bottom is supposed to be comfortable all the time. If ya catch my drift.”
Hank: “Yeah, but Rachel’s line of products, although practical and fully functional, is geared toward the bondage novice, wouldn’t you agree?”
Glenn: “Absolutely! But we all have to start somewhere.” 😉
Hank: “Do you know a budding kinkster? Maybe you’re one yourself.
Glenn: “Maybe you’d just like to know the thrill of relinquishing control for an itsy bitsy moment or two.”

Read more of this review here

Neoprene Harness $24.30

Joy & Dixie introduce us to the Neoprene Harness.

Joy: “Now this is something I can really sink my teeth into.”
Dixie: “What she means to say is ‘…sink a nice big dildo into’.”jp229.jpg
Joy: “I loves me my strap-ons! I have quite a collection. Some are more comfortable than others, but I love ‘em all.”
Dixie: “I’m not as much of a connoisseur, as Joy, but this Neoprene Harness is very comfortable, I must say.”
Joy: “It is that! It is also reversible and machine washable. I love that part. I hate having to clean lube and whatnot off my leather harness.”
Dixie: “It’s also fully adjustable. It would have to be to fit both Joy and I. We have such different body types.”

Read more of this review here

Rachel’s Bed Spread (w/cuffs) $64.53

Glenn & Hank introduce us to Rachel’s Rachel’s Bed Spread (w/cuffs).

Hank: “Now this is more like it! Rachel’s Bed Spread allows you can create a little bondage magic without the screw anchors and bolts in the ceiling jp514_d.jpgand walls needed for more traditional bondage apparatus.”
Glenn: “I love being restrained spread eagle on the bed. I love relinquishing control to my partner(s) and being ravaged by him/them.”
Hank: “And now we can play like this our own bedroom, or take it on vacation with us.”
Glenn: “These two straps go around the mattress and allow us to attach wrist or ankle cuffs to the straps. The straps are adjustable fitting a twin up to a King Size bed
Hank: “Rachel’s Bed Spread is not the least be threatening. In fact, if you just wanna mess around with some power-play this is just the thing for you.”
Glenn: “But it also works for those of us who are a tad more hardcore.”

Read more of this review here

So there ya have it, Sex Fans.  We hope our Holiday Extravaganza provided you with lot of swell gift giving ideas.  Look for more Product Reviews in the New Year.


Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered!


Name: Jean
Gender: female
Age: 36
Location: New Haven, CT
I’ve been with the same man for 14 years. We both decided to become Christians about a year ago. Now he’s not interested in sharing the same bed and not interested in having sex with me. It tried to overlook this hoping it was some kind of phase, but it goes on and on and he still doesn’t want sex. He’s the only man that could ever satisfy me sexually. I dated a few guys, four to be exact, before we met. I still love this guy but he won’t acknowledge my feelings. I feel like I’m losing everything, my best friend, my partner, my lover …and my sanity. I’m happy we’re still together, but I’m frustrated to the point of exhaustion without my sex life. Any ideas what I could do to turn this around?

What an unhappy tale of woe you have you have to tell, Jean. The Christian conversion thing didn’t quite work out like ya thought, huh? Well maybe it has less to do with Christianity per se, and more to do with the Joe you converted with.

I’ve heard similar complaints from other people whose partners have unilaterally decided to make a radical life-change for themselves. Often these new zealots fail to appreciate how their life altering decisions impact on the wellbeing of their mate. And because they are so damn single-minded about their new passion — as every zealot is, there is rarely any talking to them.

Two former clients come to mind. First, there was George, a gay man in a 10-year relationship with this other really sweet guy, Robert. Eight years into the relationship Robert had a heart attack. Despite a full recovery and living a much healthier lifestyle after the hear attack, Robert got it in his head that if he were to have sex again, it would kill him. There was no reasoning with him. No sex ever again, period. This otherwise blessed relationship ended painfully. Pity that!


Another client, Melissa, discovered long-distance running two years into her marriage to Allen. She became like a woman possessed. Running consumed her. Her career, her friends and family, her social life all suffered. But no one took the brunt of her newfound craze more than her husband. At first sex was out of the question because there was no time. Then all that body-punishing running radically changed her metabolism. She even stopped menstruating. Her libido virtually expired. Even the imminent demise of her relationship didn’t alter her running routine. So basically old Melissa just ran away from her marriage. Simple as all that!

In your case, Jean, your partner appears to have bought into the some of the worst sex-negative messages of Christianity. I suspect that there’s no turning this around and, unless you wish to continue to sacrifice your sexuality on this unworthy altar, I’d suggest you make peace with the fact that life will never return to how it once was.And what’s all this about he being the only man who could satisfy you? You’ve had only 4 other partners, for christ sake! And most, if not all, were crummy lovers. Am I right? You’re not the kind of gal that quits shopping for shoes after trying on only 5 pair, are you?There is a whole world of men out there that would be happily give you what you aren’t getting at home and some of them may even be good lovers. If no accommodation can be made with your husband about fulfilling your needs, than I suggest you beat a hasty exit.The longer you stay in this unhealthy environment the greater the chance will be that you will become more and more embittered. God gave us the gift of sexuality for a purpose. It was meant to give us pleasure and enhance life. Your sexuality is in danger of becoming just the opposite of what nature intended. Do yourself a favor and choose life and happiness. You’ll be glad you did…so will God.

Name: Pete
Gender: Male
Age: 22
Location: Ohio
dr dick: I am gay and i have no idea how to break it to my family. and they say all the time when they see a gay guy look at that fag glad he’s not my kid. i would disown him. just wondering if u could help me.

Ain’t it a bitch being surrounded by a bunch of yahoos! Coming out is rarely easy, but doing so to ignorant, fearful, bigoted people is the worst.

Pete, you should know that all bigotry is deeply rooted in the bigot’s own fear about him or herself. It stands to reason, all irrational fears and hatred, like homophobia, are more indicative of the troubled psychological make-up of the one with the prejudice, rather than the people he or she abhors.

Often people will use religion to back up their prejudice. It’s particularly galling when non-religious people do this. But it’s safe to say that authentically religious people don’t need to persecute or ostracize those who do not believe as they do. Any more than authentically heterosexual people need to persecute or ostracize people of other sexual persuasions. Let that be the standard by which you judge the worth of any message coming from a religious dogmatist or a moralizing heterosexual.9e.jpg

Before you start in on the self-disclosure thing with your family, Pete, I suggest you first try to clear a path for that discussion. Begin by challenging those around you who shame or denigrate those who are different. Ask them why they make such ridiculously uninformed and hurtful statements. Ask them if degrading other people makes them feel superior. And if it does, what does that say about their inadequacies. You could suggest that their intolerance of gay and lesbian people proves they have some hidden, unresolved sexual issues that they need to address. I mean — “me thinks you doth protest too much” — and all that, right?

If your family environment doesn’t improve with that tactic, you may find that, at least in the short run, discretion is the better part of valor. Sometimes coming out to one’s family is best done only after you’ve come out to friends and co-workers. This strategy will provide you a bank of support that you can fall back on if the family disclosure things turn out badly.

My counsel to those just starting the coming out process is to reserve the good news about you and your sexuality for the audience best situated for receiving it. Celebrate your queerness with open-minded people first. Nowadays there’s much more acceptance of alternative lifestyles in the popular culture then ever before. Particularly younger people seem to have more tolerance for diversity. But however you choose to handle this difficult but important developmental task, don’t sink to the lowest common denominator. Don’t cave into the bigotry that surrounds you. Don’t let it intimidate you into a life of shame, repression or self-loathing. Live authentically. Pete, and live proud! Because when you do, you are a shining example of a happy, healthy, integrated and well-adjusted human being.

Finally, just remember you are not alone. Sex positive and gay positive organizations abound. If you need help with any of your coming out, if you’re feeling isolated and alone — turn to one of them. They are there to help. And there are even support organizations for your family members too. Turn them on to: PFLAG (parents and friends of gays and lesbians).

Name: Bob
Gender: Male
Age: 54
Location: Laguna Beach
As an older man, I’ve started having performance problems. Unfortunately there’s no decrease in my libido. I think some of my problem is psychological. I’m also HIV+. And I find myself worrying about transmission even with condoms. But some of the problem is physical. I do wear a cock ring and that helps I guess. Is there anything else I can do to increase my performance to match my libido?

Your concern is a familiar one, Bob. Men regularly present this problem in my private practice and I also have a personal familiarity with the issue in my own life.

Diminished performance, at least in terms of a perpetually stiff dick, is a natural occurrence as we age. There was a time when I thought this was a major problem. I don’t think like that now. These days I’m helping my older clients (and myself) appreciate the full range of sensuality that is the unique purview of us more seasoned lovers. I’ve always felt that as gay men we are too genitally focused, especially when it comes at the expense of all the other pleasure zones our bodies have been gifted with.p.jpg

The rushed, hormonally driven sex of my youth has matured into a slower, more relaxed and sensual sexuality that I am thoroughly enjoying. This has been one of the very best gifts of the aging process. It’s even having an effect on my younger partners and they are appreciative.So I no longer equate performance with a stiff dick. For those times when I absolutely need a rock-hard hardon a cock ring does just fine. I’m aware that I may need more time to achieve this kind of erection, but I’m not just twiddling my thumbs while I’m waiting, if ya know what I mean. I am no longer frustrated by this natural phenomenon, because I no longer have unrealistic expectations.

I realize that many men are experimenting with an erection-enhancing medication such as Viagra, but I suggest that this be reserved for those who are truly experiencing erection dysfunction.

I’m also concerned with the alarming rise of younger men, men in their 20’s and 30’s who are using Viagra or another similar drugs recreationally. This is very troubling. If your young body is having difficulty producing an erection, then you need medical attention ASAP, or maybe you just need some sleep. However, if you’re abusing Viagra just so you can have an erection that lasts for hours that’s a real bad idea for several reasons. Not least of which is your body will habituate itself to that stuff and you will find that, in time, you won’t be able to get it up at all without ever increasing doses of Viagra.

This is gonna fuck up your cardiovascular system big time. In fact, you may very well be inducing the very sexual dysfunction the drug is supposed to help. Consider the person who overuses eye drops or lip balm or any number of otherwise innocuous health and beauty products. Their body will stop making the natural substances that these over the counter products are intended to assist. It’s counterproductive and it’s ill advised. If this is a problem with relatively harmless over the counter products, you know you are playing with fire when you’re abusing powerful prescription meds.

Whoops, sorry Bob, I went off topic there for a minute. It’s just that every opportunity I get to put out a message that will dissuade someone from hurting himself or herself, I just launch into it.So back to you. It is clear from what you tell me, your performance problems do, as you suggest, also have a psychological component to them. You have a fear that, despite being responsible in your sex play and even though you play safe, you could accidentally pass on HIV.

It’s true; one’s brain can indeed override almost every function of our body. For example, we draw each and every breath we take without even thinking about it. However, if a situation dictates our brain can and does override that essential pulmonary function and we can hold our breath. The same is true with our sexual response cycle. Sometimes we can become sexually aroused without really thinking about it. However, if for one reason or another our brain assisted by our conscience interferers with or even shuts down the sexual arousal, then that’s pretty much all she wrote.

Your scruples about the possibility that you could accidentally pass along HIV are interfering with your sexual response cycle. No cockring or an erection-enhancing medication is going to change that darlin’!In other words, the problem is not in your cock, the problem is in your head. This is something you’re gonna have to wrestle with and finally resolve. This tension between your head and your dick is actually a good thing. Your body is providing you an opportunity to align your moral values with your sexual performance. How will this resolve itself? I couldn’t say. But I know for sure resolution is possible.

I do suggest, however, that you not try to do this in a vacuum. Reach out to a HIV support group or a sex-positive therapist for the help you need in making peace between your head and your cock.

Good luck, ya’ll



‘Sex Invades the Schoolhouse’


Fifty years ago, panicked parents helped spread sex-ed programs to schools across the country, even as panicked critics mobilized to stop them.

By Conor Friedersdorf

Earlier this month, The New York Times Magazine published “What
Teenagers Are Learning From Online Porn,” a feature that probed the frontier of sex education: a 10-hour course for high schoolers titled, “The Truth About Pornography.”

The course aims to make teens in this age of ubiquitous porn “savvier, more critical consumers of porn by examining how gender, sexuality, aggression, consent, race, queer sex, relationships and body images are portrayed (or, in the case of consent, not portrayed) in porn,” the Times reports. One of its creators, Emily Rothman, explained that the curriculum “is grounded in the reality that most adolescents do see porn and takes the approach that teaching them to analyze its messages is far more effective than simply wishing our children could live in a porn-free world.”

While the conversation that ensued focused on porn’s place in American life, the story struck me as a useful point of comparison for a look back at sex-ed 50 years ago. In 1968, The Saturday Evening Post ran its own feature on the frontiers of the subject, billed as “The Truth About Sex Education” on the cover and “Sex Invades the Schoolhouse” on the page. The story documented a rapid shift in attitudes.

Until 1965, biology students in Chicago schools “might scarcely have imagined, for all the teachers ever told them, that humans had a reproductive system,” it reported. A principal in Miami said that, only recently, a pregnant pet rabbit couldn’t be kept in the classroom. Superintendent Paul W. Cook of Anaheim, California, was quoted as saying, “Not long ago they’d have hanged me from the nearest telephone pole for what I’m doing.” By 1968, all had formal sex-ed programs.

“America seems to have suddenly discovered an urgent need for universal sex education—from kindergarten through high school, some enthusiasts insist—and is galloping off in all directions to meet it,” the journalist John Kobler reported. “The trend is nationwide. Nearly 50 percent of all schools, including both public and private, parochial and nonsectarian, are already providing it, and at the present rate the figure will pass 70 percent within a year. Clergymen, including many Catholic priests, not only do not oppose sex education, they are often members of the local planning committees.” The impetus behind the change: “parental panic,” he wrote.

Venereal diseases among teenagers: over 80,000 cases reported in 1966, an increase of almost 70 percent since 1956—and unreported cases doubtless dwarf that figure. Unwed teen-age mothers: about 90,000 a year, an increase of 100 percent in two decades. One out of every three brides under 20 goes to the altar pregnant. Estimates of the number of illegal abortions performed on adolescents runs into the hundreds of thousands. One of the findings that decided New York City’s New Lincoln School to adopt sex education was a poll of its 11th-graders on their attitudes toward premarital intercourse: the majority saw nothing wrong with it.

Teen-age marriages have risen 500 percent since World War II, and the divorce rate for such marriages is three times higher than the rate for such marriages contracted after 21. Newspaper reports of dropouts and runaways, drug-taking, sexual precocity and general delinquency  intensify the worries of parents. But these evils are only the grosser symptoms of a widespread social upheaval. Communications between the generations has stalled (“Don’t trust anyone over thirty”), and moral values once accepted by children because Mom and Dad said so have given way to a morality of the relative. In addition, parents’ own emotional conflicts, and reluctance to recognize in their children the same drives they experienced … make it all but impossible for them to talk honestly … about sex.

Giving young people more information suddenly seemed less risky to many than the alternative. And in this telling, many parents preferred to let teachers do the hard part.

In Talk About Sex: The Battles Over Sex Education in the United States, Janice M. Irvine noted that the first calls for in-school sex education came in the early 1900s “from a disparate group of moral reformers including suffragists, clergy, temperance workers, and physicians dedicated to eliminating venereal disease.” They disagreed among themselves about the purpose of sex education, but united against Anthony Comstock and his anti-vice crusaders in arguing that expanding public speech about sex would better advance social purity and retard vice than restricting it.

A similar divide endured as sex-ed began to spread rapidly in the 1960s. Its proponents believed that talking openly about the subject would help cure social ills, as they had since at least 1912, when the National Education Association passed its first resolution calling for the introduction of sex curriculum in public schools.

1960s social conservatives countered that “if we talk to young people about sexuality, it should be restricted so as not to lead to destructive and immoral thoughts and behavior”—and that “controlling or eliminating sexual discussing best allows for the protection of young people and the preservation of sexual morality.”

For them, too much information posed the greater threat.

Some conservatives even saw sex education in schools as a Communist plot, causing local controversies like one in Utica, New York, where a contemporaneous newspaper article reported that “Joseph Smithling of Syracuse, a member of the Movement to Restore Decency, told an Oneida County Patriotic Society meeting that the national sex education movement is part of the ‘International Communist conspiracy.’ He said local teachers are being fooled by a Communist plot to take over this country by getting American children ‘interested in sex, drawing them away from religion and making them superficial and less rugged.’”

The era’s most far-reaching anti-sex-ed pamphlet was published in September 1968. Selling at least 250,000 copies, Is the School House the Proper Place to Teach Raw Sex? took aim at the Sex Education Council of the United States, the biggest and most influential group creating sex-ed curricula and spreading them to public schools.

The pamphlet’s first section portrays its opponents as a bunch of sex-positive relativists who can’t even be counted on to declare premarital sex morally wrong. “The public school is intruding into a private family and church responsibility as it frightens and coerces parents to accept the teaching of sex,” its second chapter begins. One can only imagine how these conservatives would regard media that children are exposed to in 2018 when reading their take on teaching materials circa 1968:

Sex education, as a symbol of curricular innovation, is in the classroom with all of its rawness, its tactlessness, its erotic stimulation. The flood of materials for classroom use includes books, charts, and unbelievably clever models which even include multi-colored plastic human figures with interchangeable male and female sex organs––instant transvestism.

The sexologists, who we cannot help but feel are Johnny-come-lately pornographers, are devoting their full creative powers to inventing sexual gimmickry.

Other passages could as easily be critiques of sex education (and especially porn education) today. “The embarrassing frankness of many sex education programs force the sensitive child to suppress his normal, emotion-charged feelings in listening to class discussion,” the pamphlet’s authors fretted. “This may develop into serious anxieties. On the other hand, he may either become coarsely uninhibited in his involvement in sex, or develop a premature secret obsession with sex.”

The pamphlet ended with a rousing call to parents to resist sex education and the notion that only teachers—“the professionals”—are qualified to decide what kids should be taught. In its telling, “the sex educators are in league with sexologists—who represent every shape of muddy gray morality, ministers colored atheistic pink, and camp followers of every persuasion, from off-beat psychiatrists to ruthless publishers of pornography. The enemy is formidable at first glance, but becomes awesomely powerful when we discover the interlocking directorates and working relationship of national organizations which provide havens for these degenerates.”

While the spread of sex education in the late 1960s undoubtedly changed the socialization of young people, giving progressive educators more relative influence and social conservatives less, claims that the curriculums were “sex positive” or grounded in “moral relativism” were very much exaggerated, as scenes from the Saturday Evening Post feature and other contemporaneous accounts illustrate.

The birth-control pill was deliberately excluded from many curricula. In Evanston, Illinois, which boasted a well-known sex-education program, “a junior high school teacher responds to the frequent question ‘Why is premarital sex wrong?’ by handing around a list of horrifying statistics on venereal disease, illegitimacy, abortion, and divorce,” Kobler wrote. San Diego described its goal as promoting “wholesome attitudes toward boy-girl relationships and respect for family life.”

In Miami, a youth counselor answered a common question posed by ninth-grade girls as follows: “Should a girl kiss a boy on their first date? Certainly not. A kiss should be a token of affection, not a favor freely distributed. Going steady? It’s too easy to slip into an overly close relationship.” In a separate classroom, boys were told, “Don’t you and a girl go pairing off in a corner. It’ll only lead to frustration. You’re not prepared for sex except as animals. Don’t start a relationship you’re not ready for.”

Only the most liberal educators were advocating for co-ed sex-education classes, that no position be taken on the morality of premarital sex, and that students be given “full information.” Fifty years later, Americans remain divided on many of these same questions. One change is that “full information” back then meant a curriculum that covered, for instance, birth control and homosexuality; by the 1990s, advocates of “full information” favored teaching students about masturbation, a taboo that cost Joycelyn Elders her job in the Clinton administration when she forthrightly broke it in response to a question.

And today? That New York Times Magazine story on porn noted a survey of 14-to-18-year-olds. Half said they had watched porn. And among them, “one-quarter of the girls and 36 percent of the boys said they had seen videos of men ejaculating on women’s faces (known as ‘facial’)… Almost one-third of both sexes saw B.D.S.M. (bondage, domination, sadism, masochism), and 26 percent of males and 20 percent of females watched videos with double penetration, described in the study as one or more penises or objects in a woman’s anus and/or in her vagina. Also, 31 percent of boys said they had seen ‘gang bangs,’ or group sex, and ‘rough oral sex.’”

Put another way, if sex educators today are to cover just the terrain that millions of American teenagers have already been exposed to through the Internet, they will be covering acts that even the most liberal sex-education teachers of 1968 would’ve found unthinkable to teach, and that they had more than likely never seen themselves. Imagine the confusion typical adults of that bygone era would feel if told about the content available to today’s teens—and then told that alongside porn’s rapid rise, teen pregnancies, abortions, and STDs have fallen simultaneously and precipitously.

Complete Article HERE!


We Need Bodice-Ripper Sex Ed



Where did you learn about sex?

In my personal pie chart, 10 percent of the credit goes to Mom and Dad, who taught me that sex was for marriage, or at the very least, for a committed, loving, monogamous relationship that would, God willing, occur once I was out of the house.

I’ll credit another 10 percent to sex ed, the junior-high health classes that taught me the names of the body parts and explained what went where in the straight-people intercourse it was assumed we’d all be having. Sex, I learned, was bad news, every act risking pregnancy or disease. Think Coach Carr’s speech in the 2004 movie “Mean Girls” — “Don’t have sex, because you will get pregnant, and die.”

Which left 80 percent to be filled in by my friends and pop culture: what I heard on the school bus and at sleepover parties, what I saw in movies and heard on the radio, the glimpses I got of dirty magazines, kept behind brown paper wrappers on the high shelves.

But I was a reader, and most of what I knew came from books, starting with the copy of Judy Blume’s “Forever …” that made the rounds of the cafeteria in seventh grade to the dozens of Harlequin romances I devoured to the best sellers by Judith Krantz, Shirley Conran, Jean Auel, Susan Isaacs and Erica Jong that I snagged from my mom’s shelves.

I’ve been thinking about sex education in light of what must, by now, be the most-discussed bad date in history.

By now, you’ve most likely heard about the encounter between an anonymous 23-year-old photographer and the comedian and actor Aziz Ansari. They met at a party, which led to a dinner date, which led to a sexual encounter that she came to deeply regret, she told a reporter, believing Mr. Ansari ignored verbal and nonverbal cues that she wasn’t into what was happening. Now that she has gone public with her account, everyone seems to have an opinion about what she did, what he did and whether talking about gray-zone sex, where the man believes that everything that happened was consensual and the woman feels otherwise, spells the end of the #MeToo movement.

Reading about it all, I realize how lucky I am that so much of my sex ed came from Harlequins.

The literary establishment doesn’t have much love for women’s fiction, whether it’s romance or erotica or popular novels about love and marriage. Romance novels come in for an extra helping of scorn. Critics sneer that they’re all heaving bosoms and throbbing manhoods, unrealistic, poorly written and politically incorrect.

But those books, for all their soft-core covers and happily-ever-afters, were quietly and not-so-quietly subversive. They taught readers that sexual pleasure was something women could not just hope for but insist upon. They shaped my interactions with boys and men. They helped make me a feminist.

Because these books were written for and consumed by women, female pleasure was an essential part of every story. Villains were easy to spot: They were the ones who left a woman “burning and unsatisfied.” Shirley Conran’s “Lace” features a heroine telling her feckless husband that she’d used an egg timer to determine how long it took her to achieve orgasm on her own and that she’d be happy to teach him what to do.

At 14, I never looked at hard-boiled eggs the same way again.

The books not only covered blissful sex but also described a whole range of intimate moments, from the awkward to the funny to the very bad, including rape of both the stranger and intimate-partner variety. Beyond the dirty bits, the books I read described the moments before and after the main event, the stuff you don’t see in mainstream movies, where zippers don’t get stuck and teeth don’t bump when you’re kissing; the stuff you don’t see in porn, where almost no time elapses between the repair guy’s arrival and the start of activities that do not involve the clogged kitchen sink.

Objectification doesn’t exist just in porn, of course. “So many men cannot get their heads around the idea that women are not first and foremost sexual objects,” the novelist Jenny Crusie told me. “You don’t get that from porn; you get that from a persistent worldview modeled by the men around you that you’ve been taught to admire.”

I have no idea how much, if any, X-rated material Mr. Ansari or his date consumes. Statistically, we know that modern men and women have access to every kind of explicit material, literally in their pockets. And they’re watching: One recent study found that 79 percent of men and 76 percent of women between 18 and 30 look at pornographic websites at least once each month, while another showed that three out of 10 men in that age group were daily viewers.

Sex might be easy, but relationships are hard. And a 400-page novel can teach you more about them than any X-rated clip. Fiction has time to draw a deeper picture, covering the getting-to-know-you stuff, the starts and stops and circling back that take boy and girl from first date to first kiss to the moment where they’re both naked and hopefully into what’s going to happen next.

“Romance novels teach readers that all partners are equal participants in a sexual relationship,” said Bea Koch, the 28-year-old co-owner (with her 25-year-old sister, Leah) of the Ripped Bodice, a bookstore in Culver City, Calif., that exclusively sells romance titles. “They highlight conversations about consent, birth control and myriad other topics that people generally find difficult to talk about. In some instances, it can be a literal script for how to bring up difficult topics with a partner. They give a road map to people wanting to experiment with their sexuality, or even just get in touch with what they want and need in a sexual relationship.”

Porn, necessarily, cuts to the chase: a little less conversation, a little more action.

Talking’s not sexy, people complain.

But when you don’t know how to ask, when you can’t bring yourself to tell, when you don’t possess the language with which to talk about desire, that’s when you can end up with crossed wires, missed signals, mixed messages, a guy who goes to sleep thinking, “That was fun!” and a girl who goes home crying in an Uber.

If we want men and women equally empowered to form real connections, to talk, honestly and openly about who they are and what they want, there are worse places to start than curling up with a good book.

Complete Article HERE!