Whatever happened to foreplay?

Once upon a time there was a thing called foreplay. Sometimes it was silent: just a kiss in a club and an awkward scuffle in the toilets. Others took more time with it. They wrote sweet lines, sent flowers, asked a lady to dance and, even, for her hand in marriage before they even embarked on it. For some people, it was all about the tease: lips licked over dinner, a glimpse or more of bosom, biceps squeezed with an “Oh you’re so chunky!” and a wink, toes moving up trouser legs. It seemed women did this better than men, this slinking about. Or, maybe, they just had more role models. There isn’t a male equivalent of Dita Von Teese, unless you count Magic Mike which none of my straight male friends has seen so you can’t, really. That said, if you’re a fella on a date with another chap, there are some moves you could steal. You’d most likely do yourself an injury, but that’s all part of the fun of foreplay.

You see, fun was what foreplay was all about.

Then along came Big Pharma declaring that, no no no no no, what people really wanted wasn’t fun; it was a failsafe ticket to instant gratification. Foreplay was pointless and sexual desire was nothing more than a physiological process, ripe for medicalization. Most enticing of all, for Big Pharma, it seemed things didn’t always go smoothly; in fact, things went wrong. People had problems: vaginas wouldn’t lubricate on command, penises wouldn’t get hard, sex drives didn’t render people horny 24 hours a day. But never fear: Big Pharma was on hand to help.

The first step in all this was to come up with a vernacular – some acronyms and terms that sounded like they came from the mouths of experts. Trouble was, sexuality was all a bit messy and the problems complex. What the whole thing needed was some disorders, a few umbrella terms, to neaten it all up a bit. So was born Female Sexual Dysfunction, Male Erectile Dysfunction and, later, Female Orgasmic Dysfunction. Being able to attribute their problems to a disorder, a medical term no less, was comforting for people, right? And if it was a disorder, that meant it was a medical problem which, in turn, meant it required treatment.

With dollar signs in their eyes and patient well-being in their hearts (honest), pharmaceutical companies set about transforming sex from something of the body and mind into a scientific phenomenon. Money poured in and clinical studies, pills, ointments, potions, devices, and patches poured out.

Men’s sexuality wasn’t of particular interest because there was only one process involved in arousal – penile erection – and it was just a question of mechanics so research pretty much stopped with Viagra. If you’re bringing in over $2billion a year in sales with apparently few complaints from consumers, why bother investing any more time or money?

Female sexuality was something different altogether. For a start, a lot of it went on down there where, unless you happened to have your head in the right place, you couldn’t see it. Thinking it might be a simple case of mechanics, a few scientists gave devices a shot: the Orgasmatron involved the insertion of an electrode into the spine attached to a control button pressed to stimulate nerves in the clitoris but which was more likely to make your legs jerk than send you into mind-melting heights of orgasmic ecstasy, and the clitoral vaginal vacuum suction pump was equally ineffective and as unsexy as it sounds. No, it seemed that there was more to it than could be sorted through mechanics. It called for something subtler than suction and electrodes. It called for pharmaceuticals. Inspired by the phenomenal success of Viagra, companies raced to find a female equivalent – a pill that could be popped and all bedroom troubles forgotten.

The race has gone on for a few years now but is yet to come up with anything to cure the “secret epidemic” (as it’s been termed) of FSD, despite the fact that it’s said to affect around 40% of women. Oprah said it, so it must be true. The latest cure-all to arrive is Tefina, a nasal testosterone spray, created by Trimel and currently entering clinical trials with an estimated release sometime in the next 3-5 years. It’s being marketed as a treatment for Female Orgasmic Dysfunction, a condition apparently unheard of until Trimel came up with the name and decided it needed a treatment. In case you’re worried you might have it, according to Trimel, “FOD is defined as the persistent or recurrent delay in, or absence of, orgasm following normal sexual excitement phase that causes marked personal distress or interpersonal difficulties”. What constitutes “normal” sexual anything no one knows, but let’s not let specifics get in the way of vast generalisations. You might be concerned about the potential side effects of the absorption of testosterone, but Trimel is quick to reassure people that Tefina is “expected to present an attractive safety profile, with virtually no androgen-related side effects such as acne, facial and body hair growth or deepening of the voice”. Probably just as well, given the adverse effect on your sex life of waking up with a hairy chest and baritone growl.

There are many cooked-up statistics to support the existence of and, therefore, need for treatment of FOD of the unspecified “studies have shown” variety. For example, 1 in 5 women has FOD, 30% can’t climax during sex, not 1 in 5 but 43% of women have FOD and “many women” have sex up to five times a month, despite not wanting to, because they think it is what their partners want and is, therefore, good for their relationship. I find this last factoid disturbing because, technically, this is sex against the woman’s will so raises the issue of consent which is far greater cause for concern than the potential efficacy of a nasal spray. Not that relationships have anything to do with sexuality – no, it’s all about the chemicals.

Despite being billed as an “on-demand” treatment, the spray takes up to two hours to have any effect which doesn’t sound very on-demand to me. I suppose I could fill those hours on something fun like, I don’t know, foreplay, maybe. Once you’re fired-up, the effect is reckoned to last around six hours. Yet to be released is any literature on what this effect is likely to be and, crucially I think, what happens if you have a squirt but don’t have sex. Say you take it before you go out, but don’t meet anyone you’d want to have sex with, are you left, squirming on a bar stool, horny as hell, with an engorged clit and wet pussy? If that’s likely to be the case, Trimel should be providing pocket rocket vibrators with every prescription.

Magic Button Theory

A little while ago, I wrote a post about the enlargement of the g-spot using the injection of a collagen-based substance into the area, catchily known as the G-Shot. In the ongoing in-fighting over whether or not the g-spot even exists (in my own experience, there are particularly sensitive areas in my vulva and vagina, but no hey presto spot), someone has come up with a new surgical vaginal excavation: Vaginal Submucosal/Suburethreal, Labial, and Clitoral Injection of PRP, or its more catchy name, the O-Shot (R). It was invented by Dr Charles Runels who decided that the g-spot doesn’t exist but, unable to resist the commercial potential of the magic-button theory of female sexual response (i.e. press a single spot in the vagina and the woman will become immediately aroused and multi-orgasmic), made up a whole new spot he named the O-Spot (R) and a whole new surgical procedure to go with it.

The genesis of the O-Shot (R) came when he decided he could apply the same procedure involved in his Vampire Facelift to women’s vaginas. (As an aside, the woman in the promotional video for the Vampire Facelift looks like she walked off a Twilight set which, though I can’t quite work out why, may be linked to the name.) The procedure involves putting a small quantity of the patient’s own blood in a centrifuge so the platelet rich plasma (PRP) becomes separated. The platelets are then activated using calcium chloride, causing them to release “growth factors”.  For the Vampire Facelift, the solution is injected into the face to plump it up and, for the vagina, it is injected into the clitoris and an area in the vaginal front wall – otherwise known as the O-Spot.  Potential results range from no change at all to turning patients into raging nymphomaniacs.

As if the multi-orgasmic promise of the O-Shot (R) weren’t enough, it also “rejuvenates” the vagina, giving it the appearance of that of a pre-pubescent girl.

The procedure doesn’t have Food and Drug Administration or Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency approval. Rather evasively, the creators say it has not been evaluated by the FDA. Because of this, though physicians have to apply to the inventors if they want to carry out the procedure, women undergoing it do so without official medical approval – they are, effectively, participants in a clinical trial, despite the massive price tag.

I can see the appeal of a push-button approach, if pressing it really guarantees the woman will orgasm. We don’t always have time to play. But bypassing the build-up means missing out on all the other things that make sex pleasurable – fantasy, touch, anticipation, and laughter to name a very few. There is nuance to sex; it isn’t just a matter of joining the dots till they form a big O. Obviously, coming’s great, but if that’s the sole purpose of sex and the only way to get there is by mutilating our vaginas (the O-Shot (R) is, by definition, mutilation), our genitals and sexual response are no longer our own – they’re subject to the whim of the medical profession. No matter how much the profession may claim – and even believe – otherwise, this medicalization of our sex lives is based on commercial gain, not on primum non nocere.

Birthing Aliens: The Movie

A take on life pre- during and post-hysterectomy.  A funny take.  I think it’s funny, anyway – doing it kept me entertained when I wasn’t allowed to do anything beyond lazing about in enormous knickers and, occasionally, a lovely dress.  (Turn your speakers on for the funky tune.)

Pathologising Passion

Did you know that wearing socks in bed may improve your sex life?  It’s true: in a study, 80%  of people wearing socks came, compared to 50% of those with no socks on.  Brain scans carried out during sex (there were no diagrams so I’m a bit hazy on the details of how, exactly) showed that different areas of the brain are active in men and women during sex: in male brains, emotion centres are deactivated and the focus is on sensations transmitted from the genitals to the brain; in female brains, the response is more complex, combining emotions, physical sensation and the relaxation of brain areas processing anxiety and fear.  The more hyaluronic acid a person has in their face, the more attractive they appear.  After a break-up, brain scans show that the same parts of the brain light up when someone is shown a picture of their ex and thinks about time they spent together as when they experience physical pain by having a hot probe touch their arm.  A study during which men watched porn with a device attached to their penis that measured arousal, showed that homophobic men are most sexually aroused by gay male porn.  60% of normal people have ongoing “sexual desire” problems and 80% of women say they make their loudest ohs and ahs when they’re not enjoying sex and want their man to hurry up and come so it’ll be over with.  Exploring your date’s “Sociosexual Orientation” (i.e. why they have sex) can help you decide if there should be a second date or you’re likely to be fatally incompatible in bed.

I know all these things because I read about them in scientific studies which, of course, means they must be true.  They’re quite interesting in an anecdotal sort of way, but I don’t really see why the studies are necessary or quite what the point of them is.  Scientists have their say about every single aspect of our lives, from what we eat and how much exercise we do to how much sleep we need and how many compartments there should be in our recycling bin.  Now they’re dissecting sex by attaching devices to penises that measure girth (increased girth being a sign a man’s turned on) and immobilising people’s heads in CAT scans so they can see which bits of their brains light up most during sex.  I admire people who take part in these studies because I’ve no idea how anyone could get turned on immobilised in a room full of labcoats, but the results are hardly likely to be reflective of people who aren’t under scientific scrutiny.  Who’s to know what’s going on in the brains of people who are just frolicking in their bedroom?  It could be that, left alone, people’s brains light up all over the place – not just in localised spots that indicate men feel no emotion during sex while women experience a gamut of them.  Tying desire to evolution already took half the romance out of it and now we’re supposed to have sociosexual orientations that determine why we have sex, none of which allows for just fancying the pants off someone, and a barrage of statistics telling use what, why, how and where we’re doing it.  We can’t even keep our socks on without there being some scientific reason for it – it’s got to be because, if I wear socks, I’m 1.6 times more likely to come than if I’ve got bare feet.  These statistics and percentages serve no purpose, aside from the faint possibility they might make one of the 80% of women faking it in deafening tones feel a bit better because she knows she’s not the only one having crap sex.  I don’t think there’s a place for science in the bedroom (or wherever your sociosexual orientation dictates you like having sex).  It’s one of the few places where we aren’t likely to run into science and all its predictions/explanations/investigations – unless, of course, you’re sleeping with a scientist in which case, frankly, it’s your own fault.  As far as I’m concerned, it’s my bedroom and I’ll keep my socks on if I want to – or not, if I’m willing to risk a 37.5% drop in the likelihood I’ll come.

 

The Revenge of The Bunny

Debunking of the Playboy myth began in 1963 when Gloria Steinem went undercover as a Bunny at the New York Playboy Club and revealed the ill-treatment behind the glamour in “I Was A Playboy Bunny”.

Still, the lure of Hef in his silk pyjamas, the man who says his best pick-up line is “Hi, I’m Hugh Hefner”, continues to enthral.  48 years after Steinem’s exposé, over 3000 women auditioned for positions as Bunnies in the London Playboy Club, almost half a century of feminism having apparently passed them by, so they could go to work in a leotard, rabbit ears, bowtie and pom-pom.   Women send him pictures of their naked bodies to appraise, in the hope he’ll make them Playmate of the Month, some having invested heavily in plastic surgery in the hope it will increase their appeal.  Anyone in his employ with a complaint about working conditions or the boss has tended to keep shtoom.

Then the High Priestesses of Bunniedom, Hef’s girlfriends, started ditching him and writing tell-all accounts of life inside the Playboy Mansion.  Jill Ann Spaulding’s Upstairs and Izabella St. James’ Bunny Tales: Behind the Closed Doors of the Playboy Mansion bear no relation to the glamour and liberalism with which Hefner has so desperately tried to associate himself.  Instead, they talk of dog shit encrusted carpets, curfews, unprotected sex, Hef’s miserliness, quaaludes given to Hef’s favourites en route to night clubs where they were allowed to do nothing but fawn over him, bitching and boredom.  Hef’s twice-weekly “sex parties” the women have to attend – unless they’ve recently had surgery, in which case they’re excused – consist of each woman sitting on his condomless viagra-hardon for two minutes while the others cheer “fuck her daddy” and play at being lesbians to keep him turned on.  If they don’t want to have sex with him, they keep their pink pyjama bottoms on, but repeatedly doing so tends to result in the woman being asked to leave the mansion.  St. James’ book is billed as a “steamy tell-all”, but, based on the content, I don’t think that’s quite how she intended it to be perceived.  Unless stepping in dog shit while queuing for your weekly allowance and faking lust for the “dead fish” that was Hef in bed, do something for you, I don’t see that it would steam up anything.

I don’t really have a cogent argument against The Playboy Mansion, per se – though I have many against what Playboy itself represents as a brand, concept, and perpetuator of damaging cultural attitudes.  I just don’t get the appeal of The Hefster – like piccalli, Tom Cruise, and vampires.

Exposing Phallacy Excerpts

Whatever you think about flashing – nothing at all, mildly curious, or think of nothing but – here are some excerpts from my book on the subject, Exposing PhallacySlick Slits and Throbbing Clits, The Penis and Masculinity and The Demise of the Good Old-Fashioned Roll in the Hay.  Enjoy.  Or possibly not.