Tuesday, April 29, 2008

(Late) Position of the Week @

"In this position, the receiving partner crouches on all fours with the legs slightly spread, while the penetrating partner penetrates the receiver vaginally or anally from behind." - Wikipedia

I promised a position today, so I have to deliver, but today it's going to be something you've probably already heard of. Let's talk about Doggy Style. (I like to call it Doggy Fashion thanks to the mentioned below. It sounds more fun.)

You may think, oh thats stupid, everybody knows about/does that already. But I picked this one today because I think it's one that is common but under appreciated, and, in fact, not everybody knows about it.

I have a friend, A, who is currently abroad. Unlike me she is very very Christian, but like me she is very very crazy. She has a fantastic imagination and a surprisingly obscene personality. We had a writing class together, and once had dinner afterwards with a group of my friends- including my best friend E. Bell, my ex-best friend B, and my co-worker friend D. After explaining a horrible sex prank that an ex had described to me to the table, I had to reiterate it to A because she hadn't heard me.
I start off "Okay, so, the couple goes at it from behind and-"
"Wait, what?"
I paused, really confused, she stopped me before I'd even gotten a sentence out, and I didn't understand what she didn't get.
"...The couples having sex from behind..."
Her eyes got kinda wide, and she looked pretty shocked and lost. It took a minute for me to get that she was talking about the sex itself.
"Wait," she says, really loud and high, "you mean, you mean people do that?! W-Why would you do that? I mean, people really do that?? Why??"
At this point I'm laughing so hard I can't breath. The look on her face was one of pure terrified innocence, and the way she freaked out, I couldn't believe it. D was nearest, and she was laughing with me, if a bit less spazmatically, but B and Bell were talking, and I had to do my own portrayal of her reaction for them, which was really fun.
A is one of my favorite people in the world, and I miss her lots, but this story (which is much funnier when I actually tell it, I promise), is brought up again and again because I love it so.

Anyway. Back to the point.

Doggy Fashion is a position of sex that emulates when a pair of dogs (or many other types of animals for that matter) have sex. It's, most simply, having sex with a man behind the woman who is on all fours (typically), and entering her from behind (typically vaginally, but this makes anal entry common as well).

This position is popular for many, many reasons. One being that the physical location and motion allows for deeper penetration, which is great for both guy and girl, typically. Supposedly this is also a good angle from which to reach the G-Spot.

Second, this position allows for crazy amounts of variation. From positions where the woman (or other man, in relevant cases) more so lays her upper body on the floor, rather than being on all fours- which creates a much more interesting and penetrative (not to mention exposed) angle, to being bent over an object such as a desk, table, counter, what-have-you, to many more that probably couldn't even be described.

Third, this angle allows the man a more "in control"- as W puts it- feeling. There is more freedom in this position; freedom of motion, of thrust, of speed, and of sensation, not to mention of the whole act itself. There is no direct face to face contact- which could be good or bad, depending- and even little skin to skin contact, which a man can control from this angle, by leaning closer, touching the back displayed before him, or clutching the chest of the woman from around her (which are bouncing around due to the thrusts, and can also be considered "hot"). Some men even feel they can control their erection a bit better from this position, and it prolongs their performance, which may or may not be true.

This position was actually recommended to me by a gynecologist once, claiming it would relieve pressure on my abdomen and body in general. I think he must have never actually done it though, because he would have known that though it takes away physical pressure from the body weight and friction, it definitely increases pressure because of the extra thrusts and energy behind them.

Which, by the way, is why I dig this position. So much more deep penetration, harsher thrusting, more sensations, and I don't have to do much except keep myself from relaxing. I will admit to being extraordinarily lazy every once in a while in bed, because very often I have to work so damned hard to "get myself off". So when I know it's not going to happen, or it already has, I sort of give up trying and let myself enjoy the ride.

Every time I think of doggy style now, I think of two things. One is that friend of mine A, and the other is Eddie Izzard, and his joke about Procreation.


"And there’s a moral to this story. Or at least there was supposed to be a moral, but because I’m dyslexic, it is, in fact, a marble. Thank you, good night." - Eddie Izzard




Related Posts: Position of the Week !

Monday, April 28, 2008

What's Your Flavor; Postion coming tomorrow, I promise!

Unfortunately, no Position of the Week at the moment. I haven't had sex in days, and haven't been up for the research. But tell you what, if your up to doing the research yourself, the position I was going to do this week was the Brazilian Bedlock. Another fairly simple one, not kama sutra, just a position, but it appealed to me when I found it.

On another sort of review note, I finished My Horizontal Life: A Collection of One-Night Stands, and I'm glad I did. It was witty, well done, fun, and-honestly- hilarious. Got my friend G to read some of it in class and she spend the entire period reading it, and now I'm obligated to lend it to her since I'm done. :-) I'm definitely glad I got it. Great read; lots of sex, lots of fun.


With nothing much else to talk about until I deliver on this weeks position, I spent most of the day wasting money- shame on me- and sucking down margaritas, which I now have an unhealthy love for.

Has anyone ever actually looked at Wikipedia's Sexual Intercourse page? It's pretty interesting, although really I just like the paintings and images, which is also why I adore the Guide To Getting It On- which has loads of interesting and awesome drawings.

Lets make it clear that I'm not big on porn, not really, but I'm a bit of an anomoly when it comes to nudity and sexual images. I love them. When W said he didn't think I'd want to go see Harold & Kumar 2, I gave him an astonished look and said "Well, there's going to be boobs, right? Of course I'll go see it." It's the actual sex act that doesn't turn me on nearly as much.

Unfortunately they were really pushing the bar in this sequel, and there was also ugly penis as well, which was a bit frightening, but at least there wasn't discrimination...

Anyway.

Tomorrow there will be a position of the week, I promise. Either the Brazilian Bedlock (above), or another simple one. I'm thinking of going for a different one, because I'm having trouble finding anything on the Bedlock.

So, while I'm on the subject, What's your favorite Sexual Postition?

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Spiral of Self Persecution

I don't make very many personal posts. Yeah, my posts are packed with opinions, but only when related to something having to do with sex itself. Now that I'm writing one, it says something, right?

And here I am. While I should be writing that horrifying English paper that is barely started but due tomorrow, I have instead been sucking down Pina Colada's (with the tiniest bit of rum inside) faster than I can pour them, and browsing the Sex-related blogs scattered through Blog Catalog. And now I find myself mourning my hopes for future success as a blogger.

Really, with so many interesting people out there, what use is there of me? I procrastinate far too much to update regularly- mostly because I, as I am now, feel I have nothing of use to say- and nothing I write seems particularly interesting.

How do you make yourself more interesting?

W. thinks I'm interesting. I hope. Otherwise he wouldn't be with me. People think I'm weird, but that doesn't make me interesting.

So I know a decent amount about sex, so what? I don't know how to approach what I want to say in a manner that gets people interested in it, so what's a girl to do?

Here is what I want, as a beginning blogger, for my blog:

*To be informative. To have information that can help people in the things they want to do.
*To be comprehensive. To cover all ranges of topics that people should know and understand.
*To be fun. What use is a blog about sex if there's nothing fun about it?
*To be witty. I have this indescribable longing be witty and interesting. I mean, it's easier to get people to like you when you can make them smile, right?
*To be helpful. Maybe I'm just silly, but I love answering peoples questions. Especially about sex! But with such in and out posts with little or nothing of consequence, why would anyone ask me a question about sex?
*For people to want to read my blog. Not to stumble onto it and say 'oh, that's neat' and pass on through, but to actually want to come back to see what's new. Some of the blogs I've stumbled on, I subscribed to their feed after reading just one post! I just can't see anyone doing that for mine. It's depressing.

I mean, other than to get comments, to get readers, or to be successful (which are all my really selfish ones), that's the base of what I want to be doing.

Now how do I do that?

My new focus is to become more interesting in what I'm doing. Not sure how, but I'll figure it out I guess.

Wish me luck.

Monday, April 21, 2008

Adult Product of the Week

Adult Product of the Week: The Wascally Wabbit Vibrator
Bought from: AdamEve.com

I bought this off of the Adam and Eve website a bit over a year ago, though you can get one from any adult site. My first vibrator. I have problems with arousal and orgasm, so I can't give you loads of stories about how amazing it is, but I can tell you that it is very well reviewed. Someone certainly likes it.

Let's start with the basics. It's fairly large, round, pink rabbit vibrator, which means it is a penis-shaped dildo with a rabbit shaped vibrator attached to the top. This is done so that you get the internal vaginal sensations with the dildo, and the external clitoral sensations with the vibrator. The texture isn't particularly life-like, but I do like the way it feels, texture-wise.
It also has a section in between that contains a bunch of multi-colored beads, supposedly to stimulate the vaginal opening. Personally, it doesn't do much stimulation in that area, but few things do for me, so I'd love to hear if anyone else has used this and how these beads (or anything else, for that matter) felt or worked.

And I must mention the faces. The rabbit part itself has eyes, and a little bitty nose, and I just think that's darling. Then there's- and this is great- a smiley face just under the glands of the "penis". Quite literally, it's a face for the head. ^-^ The glands look like hair, and then there are raised dots going down the back of the dildo, looking like the buttons on a shirt, and two bigger ones on the side, almost like shoulders. It may not be particularly beneficial for your pleasure, but I think it's an adorable touch.

I really prefer the vibrator part itself, over the dildo, but mostly because I'm all for clitoral orgasms. They're there, they're great, what else is needed? Because of the way it's set up, you can even use the vibrator by yourself, if that's all your looking for. This is good because, due to the girth of the dildo, it can be uncomfortable to squeeze in if your not looking for that kind of pleasure.

The whole thing is attached to a big square battery pack, and uses three AA batteries. It has two sliding "buttons", one for the rabbit vibrator, and one for the spinning motions of the beads and the dildo (which does a sort of twisty movement while the beads spin).

It's a bit loud but the only real vice I had with this product was the actual holding area for the batteries. I cannot tell you how often I had to stop whatever I was doing to click a battery back into place, because there aren't actually any ridges or dips for the batteries to fit into place, they're just supposed to hang there between their...whatever the sides are called.

Other than that, it's pretty okay. Its a bit wide for my tastes, but it does it's job. And I love the rabbit vibrator, it is fantastic.
I would recommend it for someone who has a very sensitive vagina and vaginal opening, because that's what would be great for this, to keep the vibrator low but the dildo's movements high.
I would also like to mention that although this is a masturbation toy, it can be used (meaning I once used it...) during sex as well, if you turn it around and just use the vibrating rabbit. I assume it could also be used for double penetration, if your lover is taking you anally, and you insert this into the vagina. I can't imagine all those sensations at once.

Have fun!

Sunday, April 20, 2008

We All Wanna Change Your Head

Currently Reading: My Horizontal Life: A Collection of One-Night Stands by Chelsea Handler

So I know I've been really horrible about updating, and I'm trying to be better,
I promise. There just comes lots of times when I just don't feel like I have anything worthwhile to say. And you shouldn't blog if you don't have anything useful to say, right? So today I would like to explain why I created this blog.

I set out to make Sin's Secret mainly because of a sudden interest- and disgust- with the recent pushing of the government's Abstinence Only campaign.

For those of you who don't know, the AO campaign gives money to pretty much ANY organization (schools, churches, charities, etc.) IF-and only if- they teach their children/congregation/customers about abstinence. And only abstinence. They aren't allowed to teach about SAFE SEX or distribute safe sex paraphernalia or condoms. No, they have to preach the glories of abstinence and why it is the BEST option. Do they really go into details of everyones other options? Nope. They aren't allowed. It's abstinence= Yay Condoms =Bad Sex=Hell

Well how very helpful.
Do you think that a kid has been told their whole life NOT to do something tis really going to worry about being safe while they're breaking that rule? I mean, when you're running from the cops, do you always make sure to look both ways before you dash across the street? No, you're kinda busy thinking about how much shit you're going to be in when they catch you.

I think they had something like this hundreds of years ago, except it was mainly for women and when they found out you had sex you were beaten to death!

Did I mention that this isn't just for children? The Abstinence Only Campaign teaches to everyone below the age of 29 who isn't married. 29!

The idiotic idea here is that if you teach kids about sex, and how to be safe if you choose to do it, you are promoting sexual activity! That if you pass out condoms, you're promoting promiscuity. That kids don't really have sex when you tell them they shouldn't. I mean, young people never do things you tell them not to, especially if God backs you up, right? (I won't even get into the God part.)

How does this make sense? I mean, if I was handed a condom in high school, I probably would have slipped it in my pocket and it would have stayed there. I wouldn't have gone "Ooh, look, I have a condom! I should go have sex! I wasn't thinking about it at all before, but I am now! Thanks to this little piece of latex in my pocket, I think I'll go get laid, turn into a slut, and get Gonorrhea!" I mean shit, do they really think we think like that?

I might not be completely up to par with my facts, but that is the Abstinence Only Campaign as I've come to understand it. And as I've come to hate it.

That's pretty much why I started Sin's Secret. As a way to help people who aren't getting the information they need. Whether they be 12, 20, or 50 years old. Whether they've been having sex for years, planning on giving it a try, or are completely against the idea.

I wasn't taught sex ed. Ever. My first sexual experiences were with an abusive, coercive boyfriend when I was barely into high school. So many horrible things could have happened, I was lucky they didn't. I was smarter than that. But I still didn't know enough. I have spent a lot of time since then learning, to help make up for what I didn't know then.
I want teenagers today to know enough. I want them to learn about sex, to know the dangers, to know the joys; to be safe and enjoy sex.

I am Sin Secret, and this is my personal protest against Abstinence Only.


Related Posts: The Sex Taboo, An Apology, The Many Ways to Play Safe 1

Monday, April 14, 2008

Position of the Week - Numero !

Currently Reading: The Little Bit Naughty Book of Kama Sutra Positions (Little Bit Naughty Book Of...)


In my little poll there, I have gotten a decent amount of response on what people would like to see most on this site. As I slightly expected, sexual tips and positions were voted for the most. So, instead of hoping to eventually write about something useful, I decided to do a weekly short post on sexual positions. A simple (PG-13 rated) image will be accompanied by basic instructions, perhaps some history, and why it is useful.
Hopefully this will be helpful and also decently interesting. Please leave as much feedback as possible, and I will work to make the process better as time goes on.
Later this week I also hope to start other weekly posts like books, websites, and toys.


The Lotus Position
This is a fairly basic position from simple Kama Sutra. You know that cross-legged position people use in yoga and meditation? Yeah, that one. It's called the Lotus position, I believe.

Well, in sex, the Lotus position is essentially this, except the two partners are sitting in this position together, with the woman in the lap of the man, with his legs crossed under her, and her legs crossed around him.

This image to the left is a sort of variation of it, where the legs aren't crossed. This can be useful if the woman is too short or not flexible, and straddling him with her ankles crossed behind his back is uncomfortable.
It's very important that you never do something that is uncomfortable for you or your partner- physically or psychologically.

This position is good because it gives a lot of balanced control. The man can be in control by lifting/shifting the woman with his arms or hips, or the woman can be in control by moving herself. And both can happen at once, creating a great balance.
Also great because it allows you to look into each others faces, kiss, and stroke the front of each other.

I do think it could be less useful for men with smaller penis'. It does not typically allow quite as much penetration (although it can if you position yourselves right) as other positions do, so it might not benefit partners with slightly smaller tools. But, that could be completely off track, it worked more or less just dandy for me and mine.

Incorporating hardware, this might be the perfect time for a vibrator For Her. One of those Durex Play vibrating cock rings might work perfectly, because the genital/pubic areas are constantly close, so you'll rarely ever be away from the sensations. Or try a strap-on vibrator (a regular clitoral one would work fine, it's just annoying having to hold it there with your hands squished between bodies), and other toys like blindfolds, and would probably be good to do on a flat surface like the floor.

Hope that's okay for the first one. Don't forget to let me know if there's anything that might make these things better. ^-^

Tried this position? Let me know what you thought of it! Leave a comment or email me to give me your personal feedback.


Untitled Paper on Homosexuality

Currently Reading: THE FURTHER ADVENTURES OF A LONDON CALL GIRL by Belle De Jour
(Click the title to view Amazon's information page)

For my Human Sexuality course, I was told to write a paper on homosexuality. Not really any parameters, just to write it. This is what I ended up turning in. I just wanted to share.

A homosexual, by social definition, is a person who is sexually or romantically attracted to someone of the same sex. Homosexuality has pretty much been around in one way or another since the dawn of man. But yet, for a very very very long time it has been considered a huge controversy. Especially in patriarchy-based societies that have history of monotheistic, “God” based religions. And especially in today's society where much of the common sense filled world wishes to, god forbid!, give them rights just like every other human being.


A lot of the controversy lies in the basis that god doesn't want people to be gay. That gay people go to hell. And while, personally, I think if someone's going to hell it's their business and no one else's, many of these religions insist on bugging those people about the fact that they're going to hell. As if it were their job to speak for “God”.


When it comes to homosexuals, I think that any love is great love, and any (safe and consensual) sex can be great (safe and consensual) sex. I think what helps that positive view on homosexuality is the fact that I am often attracted to girls. I've never had a girlfriend, and enjoy men and sex with them, I don't think I would ever be against having a girlfriend. My current boyfriend and I even had a discussion once about having a threesome. Not to spice up our sex life or so to fulfill some fantasy of his, he actually was uncomfortable with it. The idea was to have it for me, so I could see what it was like to be with a girl, without really going outside the relationship, so we could share the experience. May sound odd, but it made sense at the time. It never happened, but we still talk about it sometimes.


But really, I think I want to tell one story. It will probably take up a lot of space/time. But I like this story, and the theory that I came up with because of it, so I'll stick to it.


I once called this “Comparing lesbians to vegetables? What kind of Feminist am I?”

After moving to North Carolina as a kid, I grew up in one of those places where “gay” is either an insult or an whispered word. And if it's actually true, it isn't talked about. I didn't know what a homosexual person was until middle school. Even then, you didn't talk about it. What's more taboo than sex in a Bible Belt town that probably unanimously protested the civil rights movement and Roe v. Wade? Gay sex, of course.

In debates and arguments in my high school I was constantly on the opposite side of just about everybody else. We had, probably, about one token gay guy every three or four years, and I was pretty much the only budding atheist out of all the people I knew until my senior year. During this particular argument on homosexuality, this guy insisted that gay people choose to be gay. Hm. The example I gave the boy was a comparison of food. Hence my paper's title.


If you don't like broccoli, you can't help it. You didn't just wake up one day and say “You know what, broccoli sucks. I'm sticking to carrots. Broccoli's stupid. I hate broccoli.” You simply try broccoli for the first time, and think it's gross, and don't like it. You didn't choose to not like it. In the future, your tastes might change, but typically, the dislike lasts. As an adult you may choose to eat broccoli anyways, but that doesn't mean you like it. In some cases, you might have a reason to or to not like broccoli. Maybe your mother made it every single day and you grew to hate it even though you didn't before. Or maybe a kid stuck a piece up your nose and you had to go to the ER and so you could never eat broccoli again. Either way, your feelings did change, but you still didn't have a choice in the matter. No matter the situation, your genes, breeding, circumstance, and taste buds did all the deciding for you.

In my opinion, homosexuality can be something like that. There are very definite parallels in the ideas. It is highly unlikely that one day a person wakes up and says “From now on I'm going to be gay. Yes, that sounds nifty.” It doesn't happen. People don't choose to like men instead of women, or vise versa. Like with veggies, someone may choose to act on their homosexual- or heterosexual, for that matter- emotions or attractions, but they didn't choose for those attractions to be there in the first place. And in some cases the way a child is brought up can affect their sexual attractions in the future, but that isn't the case very often. Though they are currently looking into the idea of a “gay gene”, all that would do is further prove that people don't choose to be gay, it's just the way they are.

One of the things this boy was trying to also push along with the idea of gay people choosing to be gay, was the idea that straight people choose to be straight. Now this, this was just silly. My quick, annoyed, angry response was something along the lines of “You only want to think that you choose to be straight because you are a young, white, christian male who wants to believe that you are choosing to live by your religion's ideals.” Although, being my state at the time and my lack of conversation skills, it was probably a bit less eloquent than that.


Either way, the argument got me nowhere, and the ingrained propaganda my classmates lived by remained the same. The sad, horrifying fact is that people rarely really bother to try to understand the things they fear or are taught are wrong. They don't try to understand them, or even accept them in many cases. The military's "don't ask don't tell" policy is one that is followed by so much of our society. It's sad and it's unfair. I was simply the one who argued all the time. I hate being that person. But sometimes, that's just who I am. I'm an intelligent, pro-choice, anti-Abstinence Only, possibly bi-sexual, semi-atheist feminist who argues a lot. And I compare gay people to vegetables. ...Hi.



Related Posts: The Sex Taboo

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

First Experiences - The Female Condom

I advocate a lot for all forms of effective contraceptives. Condoms, pills, patches, caps, gels, whatever. If it protects you from something, I'm for it.

But the other day I realized that I hadn't actually used all those things. I use birth control pills- Yaz- which I may often mention, and I never go without a condom. (I can't say I never have, but I never do.) But that's pretty much my experience. My pills work for me, so I haven't tried anything else. I'm not big on lubricants (too slimy and dries me up), so I'm not an avid spermicide user (although I do have a fondness for condoms that come With spermicide already on them). And for the rest, they are over my price range or superfluous with my avid pill and condom use.

A while back, my aunt brought me a few Female Condoms (odd, I know, but huzzah us for openness) from the Student Center nearby. They sat in my condom basket for a few weeks, until yesterday.
I don't think it's fair for me to say that all these contraceptive methods are great and should be used if I haven't even used half of them.

So, I gave one a try.

Now, my first Product Review is of the FC Female Condom.



I first heard about the female condom a few months back while stopping at a Planned Parenthood booth at the university. They were handing out little bags of stuff, and of course I'm always up for free stuff, so I took one and asked what was (supposed to be) in it. When a female condom was mentioned, I asked about it, and after an explanation was glad to have gotten it, I wanted to check it out. Unfortunately my bag didn't have one, but I didn't fret.
From the explanation given, I got an odd mental image of a double sided tube, partly in the vagina and partly hanging out, and having to get the penis into the outside tube to then go into the vagina. It didn't seem ideal. But after seeing the pictures in the pamphlet that came with the female condoms I was given, it seemed much more snug and comfortable; more practical. Unfortunately, on trying it, I found out my initial idea was more accurate.

The pamphlet includes lots of information. From why its a good idea to use it, to detailed diagrams of how to use it, to precautions and FAQs, it's pretty helpful. No complaints here. Although the actual descriptions of what to do are a bit hard to follow on the first attempt, but the pictures kind of take care of it. My favorite of the precautions is one of those things that is stated several times in several places, and you just can't believe they would actually put it on something, but sadly know that some people would actually be dumb enough to not know it. It stated “REMEMBER- The FC female condom only works if you use it.”
Wait, what? Isn't that silly? That's like someone complaining that they haven't learned anything from a book, while they've never even opened it. Unfortunately some people really are that ridiculous and probably would sue because the FC didn't keep them from getting pregnant while it sat on their bedside table.

The packaged condom itself is about twice the length of a regular condom, only slightly bigger in width. Lightly squeezing it, it feels about the same as a regular condom. All the squishiness and odd plastic circles that condom users are used to, only bigger.

Upon opening, the condom kind of looks like a small tubular trash bag, with a strange circlet in the bottom. Something like this...


Seeing it, my boyfriend- W- commented on how it was definitely not sexy. It wasn't. Vaguely translucent, thick, and covered in a layer of slimy lubricant, I wasn't particularly impressed. But I plowed forward anyway.

The insertion was probably the weirdest part. It suggests to lift one leg up during insertion- much like tampon instructions- so I tried with one knee up on the bed while standing. It wasn't easy the first few attempts. You're supposed to squeeze the inner ring- whilst it's inside the bag, just as you pulled it out- while pushing it up into the vagina. This is difficult because, as I said, the bag is covered in a layer of lubricant, so it tends to slip right out of your fingers. Once that's managed though, getting it in is fairly easy, especially if you're used to tampons and the such.
The biggest trouble I had with that was being sure that it was in correctly. I mean, sure, it was in, but the idea is that it should cup over your cervix, so it protects and stays in place. But once I put it in, looking at the pictures made me feel like it wasn't in far enough. It felt like my cervix was way to close to the outside of my vagina and I just didn't think it was the right place. But, having to admit that it probably was, I just pushed it as far as it could go and went on. This only really became a problem because due to a lack of anything nice to watch (this performance certainly wasn't), he lost his erection and we had to bring it back, but that was the biggest real issue.

But here is my biggest problem. There was a bag hanging out of my vagina.
Let me repeat that.
There was a BAG hanging out of my VAGINA.
It was not at all as close to my skin as the image looked, it was very much hanging there.
Kinda like that...

It just wasn't pretty. But lets move on.

We went ahead and gave it a try. As my first impression foretold, it was a matter of getting the penis into this tube, which wasn't exactly sexy, but once the action took place, the whole thing did adjust itself, and did fit closer to the skin, and once we adjusted to it, things went pretty much like normal.

From the guy's side, he said that at first he didn't feel anything at all, but once he adjusted, it felt pretty normal.

Oh, the only problem during the event was that the edges of the outer ring did not- like some pictures show- go all the way up to the clitoris. It did, however, go to about the urethra, and it irritated the hell out of it, rubbing back and forth against it like that. That might not be a problem for everyone, but I have a sensitive one, so it was for me.

Taking it out was simple, although a bit annoying that you can't get up before you do, unless you want a big icky mess on your hands/legs/sheets/carpet. And disposal was just like any regular condom; trash, not toilet. (W actually used to put condoms down the toilet all the time and it drove me crazy!)

Basically, my experience with the FC Female Condom was not particularly satisfactory. I will tell you, however, that the thing did not break. The plastic is thick and pretty much stayed in place. So unless you use a regular condom with it (Don't!) there shouldn't be any problems with the thing tearing. So, as far as pregnancy goes, it's a good preventer despite its strangeness.

Overall, I think that while I don't plan on making use of these on a regular basis, it is a pretty adequate alternative to condoms, especially for people who are allergic to latex (FC's are latex-free, yay!).

Related Posts: The Many Ways to Play Safe 1

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

An Apology. Actually, more of a Rant. Abstinence.

As anyone who's seen this whole page may know, at the bottom of my page I have a little ticker of News stories involving sex, romance, homosexuality, heath, etc. This is a blogger feature and I thought it was a nifty idea.

Unfortunately I can't screen these news stories. While attempting to update my stuff today, I watched the ticker for a bit to see what kind of stuff came up. One of the ones I tried out was called “Studies disagree on sex ed, abstinence” from the Journal Gazette in Indiana.

I just want to apologize to anyone who read that horrible article, and say how annoyed I am that it is on my site. It makes me very angry that I can't screen those articles, but hell, at least it gives me something to talk about.
So let's.

The main idea, at first, seemed to ask why 1 in 14 girls from 14 to 18 have an STD if the government is spending so much on Abstinence Only. I started out with a sort of Hurrah.

“Despite the millions of dollars spent each year on sex education, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported that one in four teenage girls ages 14 to 18 has a sexually transmitted disease. What has gone wrong?“

See? Seems promising. It then, however, goes on to say how Planned Parenthood (hopefully we all know who they are) say that Abstinence Only is to blame, and that the Surgeon General last year pronounced the Abstinence Only campaign as ineffective. Which I actually didn't know, so at least I learned something.

However. Here it comes. The turn.
“There are numerous credible reports refuting the surgeon general’s findings.“

Wait, what?

“In 1999, a study was commissioned by the Consortium of State Physicians Resource Councils based in Washington, “The Declines in Adolescent Pregnancy, Birth and Abortion Rates in the 1990s: What Factors Are Responsible?” by Jeffrey M. Jones, who has a medical degree and a Ph.D., and 10 other medical doctors.
While the study focused primarily on pregnancy, birth and abortion, its findings are applicable to sexually transmitted diseases because condoms are the primary tool used to prevent both pregnancy and STDs in teens. The document says in part that “the contention that these declines are due to increased contraceptive use by teenagers does not withstand critical analysis and review. … Abstinence and decreased sexual activity among sexually active adolescents are primarily responsible for the decline during the 1990s in adolescent pregnancy, birth and abortion rates. Attributing these declines to increased contraception is not supported by the data.””


First my jaw drops because they're trying to prove the Surgeon General wrong about abstinence! The fact that this study came out almost ten years ago, makes me surprised they can even use it as evidence. I mean, really, the 90's is when condoms became readily available to anyone who wanted them, of course pregnancy rates went down! The article even claims that ““the contention that these declines are due to increased contraceptive use by teenagers does not withstand critical analysis and review. … Abstinence and decreased sexual activity among sexually active adolescents are primarily responsible for the decline during the 1990s in adolescent pregnancy, birth and abortion rates. Attributing these declines to increased contraception is not supported by the data.”” That doesn't make any sense! They have no reason to imply that any of that drop was due to abstinence.

But then, the idea behind the studys proof! Oh my god!

“While the study focused primarily on pregnancy, birth and abortion, its findings are applicable to sexually transmitted diseases”

WHAT??!!
I can't believe they can legally claim to that.
In case you didn't know, STD's and pregnancy are not correlated. Let me tell you why.

First off, you do not not not to have to have INTERCOURSE to get an STD. You typically have to have intercourse to become pregnant. There are exceptions, but typically, thats what it takes. STDs are contracted through intercourse anal, oral, possibly other forms of foreplay. If a couple is using a condom during intercourse, but not during oral, Ta duh; limited pregnancies but lots of STDs! I can't believe this article claimed this correlation. It's horrifying.
But that really isn't the worst part of the story. Near the end they quote a “study” done, involving members of Virginity Pledges (maybe we'll talk about those some time, arg!).

“The 2001 study concludes with the following: “As a group of more than 2,000 physicians who deal daily with the ravages of STDs and teen pregnancy, we see a simple solution: abstinence until marriage with an uninfected partner and monogamy thereafter. This is the lifetime prescription for optimal sexual health.””

......
I am speechless.
What a horrible way to use “physicians” to push your ignorant and unrealistic opinions.

And then, even friggin better....
“Planned Parenthood and many other sex-education organizations promote condom use for “safer” teenage sex. But how much safer is sex using condoms? A study by the National Institutes for Sexual Health on condom effectiveness states that even with consistent and correct use, chlamydia, the No. 1 bacterial STD, is found to be prevented only 50 percent of the time. At the 2002 National STD Prevention Conference, it was stated that condoms are only 60 percent effective in preventing genital herpes, an incurable disease that infects one in five Americans age 12 and older.”

AAAAHHH!!! Luckily this is the last paragraph, because I don't think I could take any more ridiculous frustration. I have to explain this though, because they're using a semi-real statistic and twisting it to fit their ideas.
Condoms are NOT 100% effective in preventing STDs.
They aren't. That's the sad fact; nothing is. It just isn't possible yet. STDs are an epidemic.
But I have to address the two they point out. Chlamydia and Herpes, of course they aren't 100% prevented with condoms. What does a condom cover up? The penis. Where do skin based bacterial STDs like chlamydia and herpes typically live? Just about the entire genital area. Including what? The scrotum. And what is the scrotum doing during sex? Bouncing back and forth, completely uncovered, against the bottom of the vagina! Is that skin contact? Yes! Could you get an STD that way? YES!

The thing is that with condoms, you have a massively higher chance to NOT get an STD. This article is practically saying that they are useless! What kind of message is that sending our generations? That condoms aren't really that great so they shouldn't even bother??? Is this what we want them to think???
I hope not.

Now. I know I'm a bit angry as I write this, but hopefully it still makes sense. Please let me know if there are any mistakes or inaccuracies that need to be fixed.

I just really needed to rant.



Related Posts: The Sex Taboo, The Many Ways to Play Safe