Search Results: Four Play

You are browsing the search results for four play

Here’s How Consent and BDSM Role-Play Actually Work

Share

By

In an article published in The New Yorker, four women detailed the extreme psychological and physical violence they say they experienced at the hands of former New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman. In response, Schneiderman resigned, but he also made a disturbing statement linking these women’s allegations with sexual role play. His claim was promptly dismissed by Ronan Farrow, one of the reporters who broke the story, and the women who allege he assaulted them. (One of the women wasn’t even in a relationship with Schneiderman at the time, and all the alleged acts of violence happened well outside the context of sex.) The Cut spoke to sex and BDSM educator Barbara Carrellas, who explains exactly why Schneiderman’s “role play” defense is so flawed.


Role play means two people had a conversation and decided: I think this sounds really hot, now how can we sensibly play this out. You need to negotiate before you start playing. When you negotiate, you talk transparently about what you like, your no-go zones and you state what (in certain circumstances) you might be okay with. We call it the yes/no/maybe list. For acts that you decide are a “maybe,” you should think very deeply about what conditions would have to be in place for that “maybe” to be a “yes.” Get specific — there can’t be any surprises. You also distinguish between what you would give and what you would like to receive. Maybe you enjoy being spanked, but you have no interest in spanking? Then you and your partner can switch lists you can see where they match up.

Being slapped, choked, spit on, and called racial slurs out of nowhere by a drunk person with no prior discussion of kink or role play is a red light of volcanic brightness. For most people, those fall under “edge play,” and that’s the most carefully negotiated play in BDSM. It’s much better to let a desire go unfulfilled for the moment than to be left physically or emotionally injured.

When you have both consented to something that requires skill, or has potential to trigger — such as receiving a slap on the face — your partner should know how to safely execute it and be prepared to support you emotionally. The kind of BDSM we have been talking about, consensual play, requires affirmative yeses, which are all prenegotiated. Of course, you can consent to being slapped on the face, or to being called a slave, but that did not happen here. The slapping as described in this article was bang-on brute violence.

In BDSM role play face-slapping is a trigger for a whole lot of people. The trigger level is so high that we really need to get three times consent. People who slap should learn how to do it safely, and you would never slap someone on an ear. Before the role play, the slapper would ask, are you sure you have no triggers from childhood? Have you ever been slapped before? If so, under what circumstances? Someone might say, “I was slapped a lot in the past by someone who hated me but I want to try being slapped in role play so I can see what it’s like.” I would move very slowly and I’d probably stop after the slap so we can process it and if the receiver wanted to go further we would pick up at a later date.

Responsible BDSM players do not negotiate or play while intoxicated. There was a lot of drinking reported in the story about Schneiderman. You can’t give consent and you can’t accept consent when you are intoxicated. When you are asking for consent you are asking someone to turn over their emotions and their bodies to loan you a piece of their power. We don’t lend power to drunks and drug addicts. People who are BDSM sadists or doms are not enacting their will on a poor, helpless victim; they are accepting responsibility to give someone an experience they have asked for and they are responsible for the result.

A master-slave contract takes time, thought, and sensitivity to negotiate. Schneiderman’s reported references to terms like “master” and “slave” are alarming. Master-slave contracts are negotiated between two consenting, loving people, and they usually take years. They are fine-tuned so that everyone knows where they stand. You discuss exactly how much power is given up and in which situations. They typically do not include what someone eats, and most masters do not order their slave to remove things like tattoos from their bodies.

Race play requires extra-sensitive negotiation and consent. It’s reported that Schneiderman called one of his partners his “brown slave” and demanded that she repeat that she was his property. Race play is just as, if not more, delicate a negotiation than master-slave. It is so loaded. They are some of the deepest, edgiest emotional role-play scenes that two loving people can agree to do together. They are not entered into casually. Or when drunk.

All play requires an affirmative yes from both partners to all planned activities. He was hitting these women so hard they had marks the next day. Marks would be part of the negotiation — you’d ask each other, “Are marks okay?” In cases where you have negotiated no marks and it seems like a sex act might leave a mark, a responsible top will stop and say: “I will not go any further because I can’t be certain that this won’t leave a mark; what else would you like that would not leave a mark?” You have to talk these things through and you have to do that when you are sober. This takes skill.

Nonconsensual breath play (choking) is about the most hideous nonconsensual act in SM, or at least it’s way high on the list. When you are controlling someone’s breath it is so dangerous. Most people don’t swim in that pond. You can do choking with a lot of acting, there are safe places on the neck like the collarbone. You can then put your fingers up over the throat to give the illusion of choking. BDSM is a collection of skills. BDSM players learn from people who know what they are doing.

Always establish a safe word.
When you use a safe word it means that you have to stop. You don’t want to deploy your safe word because you are miserable or hurt: Maybe you need to pee? Maybe a rope is too tight. You stop, come out of role immediately and ask: What do you need? The safe word would stop all play instantly — it doesn’t mean, okay, this is completely over; it just means when it’s uttered everything stops until we figure out why. Safe words are usually words that don’t come up during sex, saying “no no no no no” could be part of the scene. So when someone screams “grapefruit” in the middle of a rape fantasy, it’s clear what that means.

Accidents happen even when there is consent and proper preparation, but there’s a way to deal with that.
Of course role play doesn’t always go exactly as planned. If the giver accidentally makes a wrong stroke and hits some place they didn’t intend to hit, I recommend that the top should acknowledge it. You don’t have to come out of role, you don’t have to grovel. But if you tell the bottom “that was unintentional” that is very important for creating trust and letting the scene swim on. The top might put their hand on the spot to take the sting out. Or give them a kiss, and you can do all of that in a very dominant fashion.

Consent is ongoing, and it can be rescinded at any time.
Withdrawing consent is not renegotiation. Even if these women had consented to a little bit of rough sex (and there’s nothing wrong with that), they did not consent to being brutalized. They did not consent to being slapped in the face on the ear. They didn’t consent to being choked. It doesn’t matter what the role play was if they didn’t consent to that. Role-playing is consensual pretending, it is not BDSM without consent. It’s not violence and abuse.

Complete Article HERE!

Share

Fabulous Four

Share

Because The Dr Dick Review Crew has been inundated with loads of swell adult products to review, we will be presenting several different toys each week till we relieve the backlog.

Despite it not even being Halloween yet, I know from my forays into the land of retail that holiday gift giving is not far from the minds of a lot of people.  Perish the thought!  So expediting our reviews will also give you loads of gift-giving ideas.  And that, my friends, is all I’m gonna say about that till at least the middle of next month when we launch our annual Holiday Gift Giving Guide.

Today we will hear from Review Crew Members: Madora, Joy & Dixie, Brad and Glenn & Hank.  So without further ado…

There’s something brand-spankin new goin on at Fleshlight.   Here’s Brad to tell us all about it.
Sex In A Can: Spread Eagle Brew —— $39.95

The Fleshlight company has been around for a lone time. They make the legendary Fleshlight and Fleshjack. I’m the proud owner of my very own Fleshlight; it is my go-to toy for spankin the monkey. I never get tired of my Fleshlight and I wouldn’t give it up for the world. That’s way I wanted to review their new product: Sex In A Can.large_1759

I am of the mind that foolin’ around with or trying to improve on a great product, an icon even, will sure enough just fuck things up. I just couldn’t see why the Fleshlight people were tempting fate by bring out Sex In A Can. But I promised Dr Dick that I would set aside my preconceived ideas and approach this new product with an open mind.

Damn! I’ll be the first to admit, I was totally off base in thinking the iconic Fleshlight couldn’t be improved upon. Wait, improved is not the word I’m looking for, because Sex In A Can doesn’t really improve on the original design, it just gives the consumer yet another option.

Those of you familiar with Fleshlight will know that every customer can pretty much customize every aspect of the unit he wants to buy. They have several “orifice” options: pussy, mouth, asshole or “neutral”. The plastic case comes in silver, black or clear. The insert comes in different colors, and there are several different internal contours for the insert itself.

Sex In A Can is basically just another option in terms of size and shape. Here’s what I mean. Sex In A Can is shaped like a tallboy beer, instead of the traditional oversized Fleshlight shape. It is lighter, more compact, less expensive, yet it has all the features of its big brothers.

There are three brand new “orifice” options — two different pussies (Mmmm, pussies!) and a mouth. Three new insert contours too. Everything else — including the patented Superskin insert remains the same. The plastic case, the thing that looks like a tallboy beer, has removable caps at both ends, as does the Fleshlight. The top cap covers the head of the insert and keeps it clean when your dick’s not in it. The end cap can also be removed for easy cleaning.

Just like the Fleshlight, ya gotta loosen the end cap a bit before you attempt to stick in your dick. Sex In A Can is a whole lot tighter than my stalwart Fleshlight. In fact, bein the hefty-cock brother I am, it was a very tight squeeze. I had to use a shitload of lube just to get me started. Oh, and by the way, you can only use water-based lube with all the Fleshlight Superskin products. Here’s a tip: you adjust the suction created inside Sex In A Can by either loosening or tightening the base cap.

Clean up is a super-easy. A little soap and water will do the trick. But once the insert is dry, you have to dust it, inside and out, with a little cornstarch, or body powder. This will help keep things as fresh as the day you got it.

My Sex In A Can: Spread Eagle Brew, came with the Pink Spread Lady orifice; (Mmmm, pussies!) mini vortex insert; the cleverly designed beer can case; and sample packet of lube.
FULL REVIEW HERE

Sex furniture?  You betcha!  Glenn & Hank walk you around this offering from the amazing folks at Liberator.
Liberator Ramp —— $200.00

Glenn: “Check this out! This is the best thing that’s happened to butt fuckin since the invention of the sling. The Ramp is just one of Liberator’s many sex furniture shapes that are designed to add more fun and lessen bodily stress for whatever kind of sex you have up your sleeve.”
Hank: “Or down your pant leg, as the case may be. We got us a plus sized Ramp and it is covered in black pleather. But you can choose from a bunch of sizes and fabric options.”

200

Glenn: “Pleather is great, because it cleans up fast. And that’s a big plus because our sessions can get pretty messy.”
Hank: “Ok, so what is the Liberator Ramp exactly and why is even better than a sling, or a swing for that matter? Good questions. The Liberator Ramp is a big triangular shaped, sturdy, comfy and solidly made cushion. Ours is 29” X 35” X 12”. And it can be used in a multitude of ways.”
Glenn: “It’s better than a sling or swing, because it’s portable, storable and you don’t have to suspend it from the ceiling, or set it up every time you want to shag. It does stow easily under the bed. It’s perfect for butt fuckin, because regardless of what position you like the Liberator Ramp is gonna make the sex a whole lot better for the top as well as the bottom.”
Hank: “Glenn likes it doggie style. I just bend him over the Ramp and plow away at his ass. It’s easier on me, because his ass is elevated to just the right position for the ass-ult. I can go as deep as possible, because his pelvis is supported by the Ramp. Oh, and ya can’t really do doggie style in a sling or swing!”
Glenn: “Hank is right! I don’t have to arch my back or strain my arms and wrists pressing back against his manly thrusts. But he can still grab my hair and pull.”
Hank: “You joke, but I know you love it deep and heavy. You’re just a dirty little piggy bottom, aren’t you?”
Glenn: “Oink, oink! I do enjoy a furious ride, that’s for damn sure. Ok, so if you want to do another position, all you do is reposition yourself on the Ramp for a little face-to-face action. Like I lay down on the Ramp, with my head at the lowest part of the incline. I scoot my butt to the highest edge of the incline.”
Hank: “Again, his ass is perfectly positioned for me to fuck him silly. With Glenn already angled down, I can lift and open his legs with ease.”
Glenn: “My toes are pointed to Jesus, and I’m in fuckin’ heaven.”
Hank: “Oh, the Ramp is great for cocksucking too. I just lay back on the Ramp, in the position Glenn just described, which elevates my hips 12” off the floor. Glenn has all the access he needs to my dick, balls and rosebud. He can service me till his heart’s content.”
Glenn: “Again, there no stress or strain on my neck or back while I blow him. And in this position Hank can grab his knees and pull open his own legs. PERFECT!”
FULL REVIEW HERE

Joy & Dixie have the pleasure of introducing you to a new kid on the block, Duncan Charles Designs. They specialize in unique, handcrafted ceramic adult toys.

Signature —— $55.00

Dixie: “Here’s something refreshing, this ceramic textured dildo is handmade! I’m so tired of mass-produced sex toys, aren’t you? Oh to have something unique, something that is crafted not manufactured.”
Joy: “Dixie is so right; I love knowing that no one else on the planet had precisely the same toy as we have. Each Duncan Charles Designs piece is unlike any other. In fact, it’s beautiful art. And it is GREEN!”
Dixie: “Signature has a food grade high-gloss coating that makes it as smooth as glass. But it is also textured, just the way we like it. Despite it being ceramic, there is nothing fussy about this beauty.”
Joy: “However, you will want to treat Signature with loving care, not because it’s fragile, but because it is a fine-looking sculpture.”
Dixie: “Signature comes wrapped in a lovely lined ultrasuede pouch. Ours is jet black, but it also comes in red. It’s just under 8″ long and weighs in at just over 8 ounces.”
Joy: “It has a rounded head on top of its scalloped shaft. The ridges add immeasurable fun. Because of the super high-gloss finish, we only had to use a little bit of lube. And you can use any type of lube you want with this ceramic baby.”

DCD signature black

Dixie: “This dildo is designed for g-spot, clitoral or prostate massage. Unlike most of the other G-spot stimulators that have a curve to them Signature is straight as an arrow. And yet it is just as effective as the curved ones.”
Joy: “I also really like the fact that I can warm and chill the Signature to suit my mood. You can chill it in the refrigerator for a few minutes or warm it by placing it under running hot water.”
FULL REVIEW HERE

Finally, Madora, has something fun from Big Teaze Toys to show you.

Super Flower Power: 2 Piece Bouquet —— $29.99

Home; batteries included (triple A), YES! I love it when that happens. Inside there’s a bonus Flower Power keychain, a mini version of the vibe that looks like a little daisy without the stem, this one even comes with bonus extra batteries (the little watch kind), EXCELLENT!sfp-500px

My first impression is that the vibrating part, the center of the flower, is a little hard for me. At least for direct contact with my “flower”. The center of the flower is hard plastic. But I like the soft petals which spread the vibes out from its petals to yours. It’s like a gentle labia massage, which is cool and rare in a vibrator. These are especially nice if you use a little lube on the petals.

I’m starting to get used to the texture and hardness. I actually like it and like the strength of the vibe when I’m using it through my clothes, the barrier makes it not seem so hard and yet it’s still able to convey strong enough vibes right through to where they’re needed. I was thinking it could be fun for when you want to tease your partner right through her clothes. Did I mention these toys are waterproof?

All in all it definitely did the trick but when I really start to get into it, either with the vibe or the little keychain, the soft petal ring pops right off the vibrator. I either hafta kinda hold it on, or stop and put it back on, if I wanna keep playing with that part. So that’s a bummer.

The keychain has been a godsend. I’m on a trip right now and brought it with me and wasn’t concerned about security seeing it, It just looks like a toy. I ended up having cramps and everyone knows an orgasm is the best thing for cramps so I put it to use, you know, for medicinal purposes.
FULL REVIEW HERE

ENJOY

Share

Love All: The Art Of Polyamory

Share

As polyamory enters the mainstream, could a relationship revolution be under way?

By Rowan Pelling

One bright spring day last year I was idly browsing Facebook when my friend Dr Kate Devlin (a lecturer in artificial intelligence at Goldsmiths) updated her status from “single” to “in an open relationship”. Since I’m 49 and live in uptight, windswept Cambridge, rather than a sex-positive community in San Diego, this was a social-media first for me. It seemed clear the polyamory movement in Britain had finally achieved critical mass. There had been plenty of portents. First, the fact that the term polyamory, coined in 1992, entered the Oxford English Dictionary in September 2006, defined as “having simultaneous close emotional relationships with two or more other individuals… the custom or practice of engaging in multiple sexual relationships with the knowledge and consent of all partners concerned”. Meanwhile, female friends on Tinder kept being asked if they’d consider forming part of a love quadrangle. And I noticed people in my circle citing Dossie Easton and Janet Hardy’s The Ethical Slut: A Guide to Infinite Sexual Possibilities (the bible for consensual non-monogamists).

Then there were the celebrity polyamorists. Author Neil Gaiman and his musician wife Amanda Palmer have never made a secret of the fact that they both took lovers, with each other’s consent; although their set-up has reportedly become more conventional since they have had a child. Will Smith’s wife Jada Pinkett Smith once posted on Facebook, “Will and I both can do whatever we want, because we trust each other to do so. This does not mean we have an open relationship… this means we have a grown one.” Which sounds pretty much like your average polyamorist explaining why their ménage is an expansive, loving set of mutually agreeable arrangements, rather than a free-for-all. And Tilda Swinton became the poster girl for every mother who feels that, much as she loves the father of her children, she wouldn’t mind shifting him to another part of the house while she moves in her drop-dead sexy lover.

When news of Swinton’s unconventional domestic arrangements first broke, my husband said: “That’s the life you’d like, isn’t it?” I pointed out that John Byrne, the father of Swinton’s twins, has a croft he can escape to on his own, to read books and write: “You’d love that, wouldn’t you?” It seemed an excellent quid pro quo – especially for couples who aren’t each other’s gatekeeper and don’t give a fig what curtain-twitching moralists think. Throughout our 24-year relationship, my husband has never attempted to curtail my movements, and confesses himself “infinitely puzzled by men who are physically possessive”. Indeed, I’ve only been able to pursue my line of work (delving into erotic literature and sexuality) because he’s totally unruffled if I say, “I’ve got to go to San Francisco to interview the leader of the Orgasmic Meditation movement.” In similar spirit, I don’t question my spouse’s deeply entrenched desire to do no socialising whatsoever, to eschew travel and to potter round the house pondering metaphysical dilemmas as well as the contents of our two boys’ school lunch boxes. We have lost four parents and a beloved step-parent between us, as well as our first pregnancy (a baby with a terrible chromosomal disorder), so we know what heartbreak means and that profound love entails a level of kindness and support that goes way beyond sex.

But then nobody is too surprised when editors of erotic magazines, aristos or bohemians lead unconventional lives. For me, the significant thing about my friend Kate Devlin’s post was that it marked the moment when I first witnessed a bunch of well-heeled professionals all nod and say, “Good for you!”, rather than falling silent or expressing surprise. I sent her a message offering congratulations and suggesting polyamory would make a great article for my magazine The Amorist, which explores passion and sexuality. She replied, “I’m already halfway through.” The finished piece caused a bit of a stir, and a version was reprinted in The Times. Kate explained that she had one lover who occupied more space in her life than the other, who she saw once a month (both men also had at least one other regular partner), but that it worked for all of them, and she concluded, “I am content though. Happy, definitely, in a way that I couldn’t be if I were with just one person. I am fascinated by people and delight in learning more about each one… I know polyamory is not for everyone. There are degrees of it that are not for me. I’m tentatively feeling my way blindly because the familiar social structures aren’t in place, but it’s OK. It’s OK. I remind myself that it’s OK. For every pang of insecurity, I have an equal and opposite panic about being trapped. Then my heart lifts as I remember: I’m not.”

For decades, the notion of a complex, open-sided set of mostly heterosexual relationships has been associated with the more baroque excesses of the 1970s – along with key parties, pampas grass, shag-pile carpets and the bearded man from The Joy of Sex. It’s no surprise that this is viewed as the decade of carefree sexual exploration. Lovers benefited from the advent of the contraceptive pill: the first time an entire generation of women had been freed from fear of pregnancy. It was also an age of relative innocence, before the Aids pandemic and doomy sexual-health ads terrified the populace back into serial monogamy. But it was also an age when the bearded man had the upper hand. The general consensus was that “free love” was imposed by randy men on unwilling women, and that it never really worked; someone was always left sobbing and abandoned in the corner. Joni Mitchell spoke for many when she said, “It’s a ruse for guys.”

The only problem with that point of view is that monogamy clearly doesn’t work either. One-on-one is clearly the best way to proceed when you’re in those electrifying early years of love: the space when you’re so narcotically in thrall to your beloved that everyone else seems faintly repugnant. And monogamy certainly works while your cultural inhibitions, religious sensibilities, or sense of loyalty and duty to shared family, friends or children outweigh all other considerations. But, eventually, so the statistics tell us, only the fortunate minority feel a deep, abiding, unconflicted contentment in one person’s arms over an entire lifetime. The other 70 or so per cent of humans in the Western world will be unfaithful at least once in their lifetime. Divorce rates now run at well over 40 per cent in Britain and America. The certainty of adultery, heartbreak and pain is the other great inconvenient truth of our times. Which is why New York-based relationship guru Esther Perel recently published The State of Affairs, which attempts to explore the myriad reasons for infidelity and to look at how couples can not only survive betrayal but learn from it and even become stronger. The prevalent myth Perel seeks to dispel is the notion that one person can be everything to another: soul mate, lover, best friend, fellow adventurer and co-parent. In her view, adultery is often about the desire to reinvent the self and become fresh and fascinating in another’s eyes, rather than an active wish to reject the best beloved.

So what does a pragmatic, ethical individual do if they don’t ever want to behave like a lying, cheating love rat to the person they adore? For increasing numbers of people admitting to an enduring libido, the logical answer is polyamory. Now if, like me, you’ve knocked about a bit, you’re going to find the concept far older and more familiar than something supposedly invented at the tail end of the 20th century. Many in the LGBT community laugh at polyamory being some form of novel arrangement. The gay writer and comedian Rosie Wilby, whose book Is Monogamy Dead? was published last year, told me, “The LGBT community has experimented with forms of non-monogamy for decades. If you’re already doing something that has been widely viewed as ‘deviant’, then trying out another deviance from the norm has never felt like too big a jump. So it’s hardly a new concept for us.”

Indeed not. Think of the sexually fluid Bloomsbury set, who Dorothy Parker famously described as having “lived in squares, painted in circles and loved in triangles”. Many Edwardians – generally intellectuals, radicals and the upper classes – thought a free and open pass on fidelity was a practical way to go about things. After all, this was an era where the king himself – Victoria’s playboy son, Edward VII – was known to have taken many mistresses, including actresses Sarah Bernhardt and Lillie Langtry. It was also an idyll, a long-skirted, Arts and Crafts summer of love, which followed the more fixed morality of the Victorian era and flourished before the terrible devastation of the First World War. Proponents of unusual erotic arrangements were everywhere, from Vita Sackville-West (lover of Virginia Woolf) and her husband Harold Nicolson to the children’s author Edith Nesbit, who shared a house with spouse Hubert Bland and his mistress Alice Hoatson. Nesbit even raised Hoatson’s two children by Bland. Sexual experimentation started at the top. Meanwhile, last winter’s arthouse cinema hit Professor Marston and the Wonder Women dramatised the story of psychologist William Moulton Marston, the creator of Wonder Woman, who lived with wife Elizabeth and mistress Olive Byrne.

Complete Article HERE!

Share

Federal courts ask: What is the meaning of ‘sex’?

Share

Existing prohibitions against discrimination ‘because of sex,’ already provide a civil rights umbrella wide enough to cover discrimination based on sexual orientation and transgender identity, some judges are beginning to say.

By

A number of federal courts have begun to ask a question that has become more and more subtle over the past few years: What is the meaning of ‘sex’?

It’s a question that has in many ways evolved out of the storms of cultural change that have surrounded the country’s shifting ideas about human sexuality and gender over the past few decades. Many of these culminated in the US Supreme Court’s landmark 5-to-4 decision in 2015, in which a bare majority declared same-sex marriage a constitutional right.

On the one hand, the high court’s epoch-changing decision that legalized same-sex marriage created the kind of situation that inevitably arises out of rapid cultural change. Today, neither the federal government nor some 28 states offer any explicit civil rights protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people (LGBTQ), either in the workplace or any other arena of daily life.

“It is constitutionally jarring to know that, in most states, a lesbian couple can get married on Saturday and be fired from their jobs on Monday, without legal redress,” notes the legal scholar William Eskridge, professor at Yale Law School in New Haven, Conn.

And many throughout the country, even those with liberal-leaning views, continue to be uneasy about the presence of transgender people in certain sensitive places, including school bathrooms and locker rooms.

On Friday, President Trump issued a policy memo that would disqualify most transgender people from serving in the military, after tweeting about his plans to issue such a ban last July. As Defense Secretary Jim Mattis reported to the president in February, the administration is concerned that the presence of transgender soldiers could “undermine readiness,” “disrupt unit cohesion,” and create unreasonable health care costs for the military, echoing arguments used in the past for other groups.

At least four federal courts have found this reasoning constitutionally jarring as well, potentially violating the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

Yet beyond sweeping constitutional questions which regulate what the government can do to its citizens, the nation’s evolving definitions of sex, marriage, and gender have also been quietly transforming the nation’s civil rights laws, which regulate how citizens live their common lives together.

Title VII and Title IX

Indeed, a number of federal courts have recently begun to weigh in on a vigorous and relatively new legal idea, simmering for the past few years in federal civil rights cases but only now beginning to take a more defined legal shape.

There may be no need to press Congress and the majority of state legislatures to change their statutes and explicitly add LGBTQ people to their lists of protected classes. (Traditionally, these include race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.) Existing prohibitions against discrimination “because of sex,” already provide a civil rights umbrella wide enough to cover discrimination based on sexual orientation and transgender identity, some judges are beginning to say.

The Obama administration took this position in 2016, telling the nation’s public schools that transgender students should be able to use the bathroom of their choice, a directive that interpreted Title IX’s prohibitions against sex discrimination as covering transgender identity.

Last April, the US Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, which includes nine justices nominated by Republican presidents and five by President Ronald Reagan, also embraced this idea. In an 8-to-3 decision that spanned the panel’s ideological spectrum, the full court ruled that the Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination in the workplace also included any based on sexual orientation.

Last month, the Second Circuit in New York issued a similar ruling. “Sexual orientation discrimination is a subset of sex discrimination because sexual orientation is defined by one’s sex in relation to the sex of those to whom one is attracted,” wrote Chief Judge Robert Katzmann for the 10-3 majority. It would be impossible “for an employer to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without taking sex into account,” he continued.

Such an evolving legal definition of sex could again reshape the nation’s legal landscape. “Potentially a lot is at stake,” says Professor Eskridge. “Depending how broadly you go, this idea could affect dozens of state statutes and dozens of federal statutes, the chief of which are Title VII and Title IX,” sections in the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act that forbids discrimination both in the workplace and in public schools.

Original intent

On the surface, the debate over the meaning of “sex” in these cases divides legal thinkers into classic liberal and conservative approaches to the law. Those who focus on the “original intent” of laws and the precise words of the legal text have generally rejected the expansive lines of thinking about the definition of sex.

“I think the better answer, the cleaner answer is just, let Congress go ahead and change the laws,” says Mark Goldfeder, senior fellow at the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory Law School in Atlanta. And there’s virtue in hashing out such questions through a political process rather than letting a panel of judges make such society-shaping decisions.

Indeed, this was part of the reasoning behind a three-judge panel in the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, which came to the opposite conclusion. In a 2-to-1 decision, the majority said that discrimination “because of sex” and discrimination based on sexual orientation were two different things. The disagreement among appeals courts could invite a potential Supreme Court review, scholars say.

But the history of the legal concept of “sex discrimination” unfolded in a much more complex way, many observers note, and conservative jurisprudence, too, has played a key role in the evolving definitions of “sex” that almost immediately began to widen over time.

“There’s been this natural progression of the law,” says Susan Eisenberg, managing partner at the Miami office of Cozen O’Connor. As a trial attorney who has been defending companies from civil rights complaints for more than two decades, she’s has watched as the concept of “sex” in discrimination cases has evolved over time, changing the ways she defends her clients.

The evolution of civil rights law

In the first decade after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, she and others point out, the “original intent” of the prohibition against sex discrimination was clear. The nation’s elite law schools and medical schools were often reserved for male applicants only, single women could be denied leases and bank accounts, and the nation understood its merit-based workplace as the natural domain of men alone.

But by the 1970s, people began to claim that sexual harassment in the workplace also violated Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination, and the Supreme Court agreed, declaring “a hostile work environment” as a violation of Title VII.

By the end of the 1980s, the Supreme Court found that discrimination based on “gender stereotypes” was also a violation of civil rights laws – in this case a woman who was passed up for promotion because she did not act feminine enough.

“She argued: that’s discrimination against me on the basis of my sex,” says Steve Sanders, a professor at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law in Bloomington. “They’re not discriminating against me as a woman per se, but they’re discriminating against me because I failed to demonstrate certain stereotypes of what it means to be a woman, and the Supreme Court accepted that.”

And the nation’s high court broadened the definition even further in 1998, ruling unanimously that Title VII’s workplace protections covered sexual harassment between members of the same sex – a key decision, says Ms. Eisenberg, citing a passage that in many ways redefined her job.

“Statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils, and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which we are governed,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia for the majority in the case Oncale v. Sundowner, explaining the expanding definition of sex in this area of civil rights law.

“The sexual orientation cases that we’re now seeing basically takes the logic of these cases one step further,” says Professor Sanders. “If you’re a man, the social stereotype and the social expectation is that you will want to have sex with a woman, that you will want to have a relationship and a marriage with a woman. But, no, you defy that gender stereotype about what it means to be a man, because you’re attracted to other men.”

“Well, if the idea that men should only be attracted to women and women should only be attracted to men is a form of gender stereotyping, ergo, the logic goes, it’s covered by Title VII,” he says.

The Trump administration, however, maintains that while the Justice Department “is committed to protecting the civil and constitutional rights of all individuals,” in these case it remains “committed to the fundamental principle that the courts cannot expand the law beyond what Congress has provided,” said Justice Department spokesman Devin O’Malley in February.

‘Lack of clarity can prove expensive’

Corporate attorneys say most businesses have already instituted their own antidiscrimination policies. “But though many have adopted these, only voluntarily, the unevenness, the irregularity of anti-discrimination laws, I think is very challenging for the business community to grapple with,” says Darren Rosenblum, professor at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University in New York. “So I think there is an imperative to clarify the law on this point. That’s what they need first and foremost, because the lack of clarity can prove expensive, figuring out which norms to follow.”

Even so, Eisenberg points out that given the ways in which the high court has redefined the meaning of sex in past precedents, today simple claims of “gender stereotyping” already covers most claims of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

“And if you’ve got people who are being discriminated against just because they’re not part of a protected characteristic, that’s just not good management,” Eisenberg says. “It’s not good for recruiting, it’s not good for maintaining employees, it’s not good all the way around.”

Complete Article HERE!

Share

Pivot to Pleasure

Share

Hey sex fans!

It’s Product Review Friday once again.

This week we have another wonderful product from our good friends over at We-Vibe. As you probably know, they have been part of this review effort since 2008 when we reviewed our first product of their line. Since then we’ve happily reviewed plenty of their other products.

To keep track of all our reviews of the amazing products coming from We-Vibe, use the search function in the sidebar of DrDickSexToyReviews.com, type in We-Vibe, and PRESTO!

Here to show us around are Dr Dick Review Crew members, Denise & Ken.

The Pivot by We-Vibe —— $61.03

Denise & Ken
Ken: “After a very long hiatus, Denise and I are back with the Review Crew.”
Denise: “That’s right, we signed on for more. After we got the word that Dr Dick was going revive the Crew, we wanted back in. But, we were in the middle of a move when he made the announcement and then I got knocked up…thanks KEN!! So this is our first opportunity to post a review.”
Ken: “Today we bring you a product from one our favorite companies, We-Vibe. The last time we reviewed one of their products was way back in May, 2014. Damn, that’s nearly four years ago!”
Denise: “Yep, here is Pivot by We-Vibe. As you can probably tell from just looking at it, it’s a vibrating cockring. These things are all the rage these days. I think the Review Crew has reviewed at least four if not more of these things over the years. If you know anything about We-Vibe, you can probably also guess that they will take the concept of a vibrating cockring and max it out. Pivot is both classy and well made. And like all of We-Vibe’s toys lately Pivot is app controllable. We’ll get into that in a minute.”

Ken: “Pivot is made of a silky blue silicone. There is a little magnetic plate in the tip where the USB charger connects. Silicone, rechargeable, and waterproof, what more could one want? Magnetic charging ports are great if you can iron out the cable. This took some doing at first. The cable kept disconnecting from the port until if figured out that if I weighed down the cable, so it wouldn’t disconnect, I’d get a solid connection.”
Denise: “So here’s the deal; I need clitoral stimulation in order to cum. While fucking is nice and all, penetration alone won’t get me off. That’s why I always have a vibrator near to hand when Ken’s inside me. So when I first heard about vibrating cockrings, I thought, holy shit that’ll be the ideal solution to my vibration needs during penetration. I’d finally get a hands free way to get off; problem solved! Unfortunately, I failed to take into consideration that while thrusting, the vibrating cockring loses contact with my clit. DAMN!”
Ken: “I didn’t think of that either, but don’t lose heart. We’ll have more to say about that in a bit. The business end of Pivot, where the vibe is, is at 3” in length, 2” in width and about 1.25.” thick. The hole of cock ring itself is approximately 1.25” in diameter unstretched. Just so you know, this is the kind of cockring that just fits around your dick, don’t think you’re going to stretch it around your balls too. And if your cock is thicker than average, say more than 5” you’re in for a super snug fit. Despite the fact that the silicone does stretch, I found Pivot too snug for me.”

Denise: “Let’s get back to the app. If you have a smart phone or tablet, you can download We-Connect for free, and use it to control your Pivot. Or your partner can control it, even if they aren’t in the same room as you or even in the same city. That’s the funnest part, if you ask me.”
Ken: “I think the app is absolutely necessary. While there is a button on the ring itself that will turn it on and off and cycle through the 10 different vibration modes, the button is tiny. And lube will make it really slippery so the button is really hard to press. The app, on the other hand, lets you play around with the settings in a more visual way. You won’t have stop the action and try to find the button on Pivot itself.”
Denise: “We’d better remind everyone that you can only use a water-based lube with a silicone toy like this.”
Ken: “Because I found Pivot too snug for me to wear, I decided to use it on a dildo. That way I could pleasure Denise, or she could pleasure herself while keeping the vibration constant on her clit. The vibration is both powerful and rumbly, just like we like it.”

Denise: “Yeah, when I use Pivot attached to a dildo I’m able to do more of a grinding motion as opposed to thrusting, which maintains more constant contact with my clit. And I leave the app manipulation to Ken.”
Ken: “I can slip Pivot over a couple of my fingers when I’m jerking off. And I leave the app manipulation to Denise.”

Full Review HERE!

Share