Figleaf's Real Adult Sex

Megan Carpentier of Jezebel says

Slate’s Kate Klonick wonders why more American women don’t use IUDs. As the recipient of one of the devices as well, I sometimes wonder the same thing.

She said it here.

Carpentier’s a good writer. IUDs are amazingly effective but pretty misunderstood. She does a great job laying out the many pros, laying out the few cons, and laying to rest some of the seriously out of date and never all that true myths about them. I’d say go read it even if you’re not in the market for a different, highly-effective, low-maintenance form of birth control. Because you might know someone who is.

—-

By the way, is it just me or does it seem like the standard “yeah but” objection about how you still need to use condoms to prevent STIs comes up sooner in discussions of IUDs? I mean, yeah, duh, but it’s just as true of every other non-condom form of contraception from the Pill to sponges to vasectomies to… oops… “abstinence-only” activities like oral and anal contact. But why let that be an objection at all? Not to sound too pundit-y but pregnancy and STIs are two different issues both in theory and practice: not everyone who needs to worry about STIs needs to worry about pregnancy, and not everyone who needs to worry about pregnancy needs to worry about STIs. And, again not to sound too pundity-y but STIs can be transmitted a lot more ways than pregnancy can. And not to sound too contrarian but very high-reliability contraceptive measures like sterilization and IUDs might make it easier for heterosexuals to pay closer attention to avoiding giving each other STIs.

Upate: About that STI link: In comments here Sugarmag explains that possibly dated information associates IUDs with greater chances of STI-derived pelvic inflammatory disease. But further down in comments here Kaija says more recent research says STI-related complications seem to come mostly from pre-existing STIs rather than infections transmitted after the IUD is in place.

[Note: 24 hours later I realize the title sounds awfully insistent. My titles are often a bit goofy or free-associative — possibly because I do them last thing after I’ve written the post. In this case I was thinking about the subject matter and the English vowel sounds, AEIOU, kept coming up, and then AE-IUD, then Hey Hee-IUD, and then Hey You IUD. So it was totally random but, I realize now, it sounds awfully bossy too. If it’s just me then forget about it, if it bugged you too then my apologies. —fl]

Note: this post is about child custody as it relates to parenting, not divorce. Consequently it may not be particularly relevant to the horrific, and often highly-gendered legal battles for child custody in contemporary divorce culture. —fl]

Via Vanessa at Feministing there was a report on non-custodial mothers on The Today Show. And earlier this month Miriam, also at Feministing (where there are some thoughtful comments), linked to a three-part series by Leah Goldman about non-custodial mothers at Marie Claire Magazine. Lisa Belkin at the NYT’s Motherlode blog, where there are also a ton of comments, mentions the Marie Claire article too.

The article itself about a woman, author Maria Housden, who lost a toddler to cancer, had another child soon after, before she and her husband separated. In the following excerpt I’ve highlighted three cool lines highlighting our relationship with the notions of motherhood and “nature.”

Housden longed to write about the devastating experience of losing a child, an undertaking that would require intense reflection — and freedom from the daily grind of raising three kids. It was Claude who first suggested that he retain physical custody. But the idea horrified her. “Are you crazy?” she yelled. “What kind of mother makes that decision?“

Unable to sleep that week, Housden realized that she was letting her fear of what the neighbors might think — “that I was incompetent or that I didn’t love my kids” — dictate what was best for her family. While the children needed stability, she needed time to process what had happened to her. Shortly after, she agreed to give up physical custody. She moved to an apartment three miles away from her children so she could see them on weekends.

...

Housden’s second book, Unraveled, published in 2005, tackled her agonizing decision to forgo custody. “I did something divorced fathers are expected to do every day. But when a mother does it, it’s abandonment,“ she says, recalling a stinging radio interview in which a caller suggested she be sterilized.

Read the quotes in context here.

That line “...her fear of what the neighbors might think” is a pretty big one. And, while I’m guessing legal-custody-obsessed MRAs have chimed in heartily, that line “divorced fathers are expected to do everyday” is another big one. Here’s why.

The first, trivial reason they’re big deals is that they’re thumbs in the eye for pop sociobiologists and pop evolutionary psychologists for whom cognitive, anticipatory, non-instinct-driven responses to social pressures that can vary widely between cultures and over time is an invisible 4th dimension. For all the talk about highly subtle, allegedly evolved behaviors related to waist-hip ratios or oxytocin receptors the genes they need to be looking for are the “what will the neighbors say” gene and the “but everybody else is doing it what’s your problem” gene.

The second, much bigger reason though, is that if “maternal instinct” really was and instinct then that’s just one more area where women magically have no agency isn’t it? For that matter, if… I dunno… the corresponding “paternal” child-abdicating instinct all that would do is cement the status quo.

But in fact it’s possible to love one’s children with all one’s heart with nary a “maternal bond” or “paternal pride” in sight. And it’s also perfectly possible to leave them.

Which makes it a bigger deal when people… men and women… stay with their children. Because it’s neither cute, nor heroic, nor admirable that we breathe, for instance. Breathing’s an instinct, and good luck trying to stop that. But parenting — being a mom, being a dad, being a parent, or grandparent, or aunt or uncle, or god-parent, or co-parent, or partner of a parent — can be cute, and heroic, and admirable or any of the other traditional adjectives because we can and not because we must.

Point being that acknowledging mothers who waive custody instead of condemning them or insisting something’s wrong with them makes it more cool, not less, to be a mother who shoulders custody. And the same, by the way, with acknowledging fathers who surrender custody instead of tin-whistling “but of course, men do that every day.”

Kevin Drum of Mother Jones says

Should Barack Obama respond to the “birther” lunatics by asking the Hawaii Department of Health to produce his original birth certificate? Should Sarah Palin be required to produce original medical records proving she’s really Trig Palin’s mother? Conor Friedersdorf says no. Elected officials may have less right to privacy than ordinary citizens, but there are limits:

As evident is that public officials are under no “transparency” obligation to address all questions. Were the right fringe to allege that Barack Obama is in fact a woman, and demand a photograph of his penis to definitively prove otherwise, and the left fringe retaliated by alleging that Sarah Palin is a man, and requested the same sort of photographic proof, Andrew [Sullivan] would surely join me in concluding that both politicians havesome right to privacy. Right?

He said it here.

My only comment at this point would be “the gods often grant in earnest what we ask for only in jest.”

Based on recent birther, 9/11, and ‘winger healthcare gyrations there’s no reason to suppose some ‘winger on the House floor, or talk radio, or maybe over at the Corner won’t bring it up before Labor Day.

It would of course be perfectly fine, and maybe even laudable if public figures choose to post their own half-Nekkid photos. But one imagines any Birther requests would be just one more attempt to use nudity to humiliate rather than illuminate. Or even titillate.

(Signature: composed on a hand-held — pardon any typos.)

102 degrees isn’t that hot for a lot of the country but in the 30 years I’ve lived in my corner of the Northwest it’s never been over 100. Actually until today it’s never been over 100 since they started keeping records!

Yes, I want to sit around not just half-nekkid but completely nekkid. But… actually sex in the shower… or anything in the shower, would be just lovely right about now!

Quickly browsing other northwest bloggers I see I’m so not alone.

Update: Quick note: yes, of course it gets hotter in other parts of the country but it rarely gets even into the 80s here. And so hardly anyone has air conditioning. For instance reaching 103 degrees outside my house meant it reached 95 degrees inside!

Happy HNT (or Half-nekkid Thursday!)

More like this here.

This week’s question for Em & Lo’s Wise Guys feature is “Is sex with a condom really all that bad?”

As usual the answers vary but the consensus tends to be… not all that bad, no, but not so great either. Reasons given by this week’s Wise Guys (disclaimer, I’m an occasional Wise Guy for Em & Lo) vary, as do those by men and women in comments. I was glad to see that some men are starting to be willing to talk about one that’s probably really important but not often discussed.

One downside of condoms I keep hearing about privately but not so much in open discussion is loss of erection. I’ve had a vasectomy, and been pretty much in long-term “fluid bonded” relationships, since just before concerns about HIV emerged so I don’t actually have a lot of experience with condoms. But even when I was an… um… perpetually upstanding young man it took a lot of gear-shifting to unwrap and properly put on a condom, and between the mental distractions, the time spent, and the fact that putting one on necessarily means you’re thinking about myriad consequences if something went wrong I’d often shrink to a point where penetration became difficult.

And since, as I discovered decades later, it’s actually not just me it would be very nice if there was more, and more open, discussion of the effect.

I’m guessing it’s an even bigger problem for men who already have other problems getting and keeping erections.

This isn’t to say I’m complaining about condoms, just that I’m guessing that at least part of male discomfort with the things comes not from the (ahem) straight-up loss of sensation but surprise or dismay about flagging, however briefly, when standard narratives about masculinity says it’s least supposed to happen. So, I guess, instead of complaining about condoms (which is pretty common) I’m complaining about the standard myths, narratives, and procedures involved in getting it on, and keeping it on, while putting it on. :-)

Again, obviously it’s not a problem for every man but it’s evidently a problem for quite a few of us. A little help with that would be handy.

For the record, for me anyway, if and when (usually when) my erection returned intercourse with a condom isn’t so less pleasant than intercourse without that I’d rather do without.

A post from last April about Unforseen Consequences of Men Believing Themselves Unseen has been picked up on by the social-referral site StumbleUpon.com. I’m glad it’s been picked up — I think it’s a good piece about an important topic. I have no idea, however, who originally, um, stumbled upon the post and linked it, nor how to find that original link so I could thank or otherwise credit them.

At any rate thanks. Welcome. While you’re hear you might also want to check out

• Em & Lo’s post The World Needs More Male Nudes
• Christina Lloyd’s blog Erotica Cover Watch, which advocates the whacky idea that publishers should put actual men on the covers of erotica written by and for heterosexual women.

• Hugo Schwyzer’s post Of never feeling hot: the missing narrative of desire in the lives of straight men and his follow-up post More on desire, ranking, and body anxiety: some less organized thoughts

In a post titled “Can a feminist read Cosmo?” Hugo Schwyzer says, almost as an aside

Over and over again, I’ve heard my women’s studies students describe reading fashion magazines or watching sexist shows (or, increasingly, looking at mainstream pornography) as “guilty pleasures.” And as a feminist, I’m wary of that phrase.

He said it here.

In the post he goes on, with more generosity but also more authority, to weigh the pros (there are some) against the cons of the likes of women’s magazines. And I’d add that the subset of people who read Cosmo and believe it is probably considerably smaller than the subset of those who read it (like… pretty much everyone I’ve ever heard say they read it) for the howlers.

But what I really wanted to do for a second was question the term “guilty pleasures.” Which, after yesterday’s post about women and “good” vs “bad” sexy I think the term guilty pleasure is just more of the same.

—-

Holly of The Pervocracy, taking her own entirely non-guilty pleasure in Cosmopolitan illustrates why the only reason ever to feel dumb, or guilty would be if you ever took any of it seriously:

[“guy poll” results] What girlie look do you most go for?
The girl next door: casual, not a ton of makeup, ponytail — 76.1%
...The fashion plate: cutting-edge outfit, the latest haircut, trendy handbag — 6.9%

This is only funny because it comes after sixty pages of ads and editorial on how to become the fashion plate.

She said it here.

I happen to think you’d be better off not reading Cosmopolitan or Elle on the one hand, or Details, Esquire, or GQ on the other. But not because doing so is either dumb, wrong, or something it’s possible to be actually guilty of.

And as Holly points out, if you look at it as a sort of find-the-hidden-object puzzle magazine it sounds like it can be hours of harmless enjoyment.

—-

And while I hadn’t thought of it when I started writing about it, it seems like the only possible source of guilt in most so-called guilty pleasures would be for women failing to hyper-monitor their hyper-responsibility. Said hyper-responsibility being an expectation set for women to compensate for… correspondingly low expectations set for men. Just saying.

—-

But seriously, how’s eating pudding supposed to be “sinful” or “decadent?” How’s going to a spa an “indulgence?” How’s there anything shameful about “squandering” extra money you earned on a good, or a better, or another vibrator? It’s just pudding. It’s just a spa. It’s just a vibrator. What’s to feel guilty about?

It’s not that there’s nothing to feel guilty about in the world. It’s just that it seems to me very, very few of them are accompanied by actual pleasure. Obsession, maybe. Compulsion, sure. Pleasure? Not so often.

—-

Finally, see also Jenna’s piece “The Real Reason Women’s Magazines Suck” at Jezebel

By the time I was in, like, 2nd grade I’d already heard the sophomoric variation on the nursery rhyme

There was a little girl
Who had a little curl
Right in the middle of her forehead

And when she was good
She was very, very good
And when she was bad
She was wonderful

Holly of The Pervocracy nicely clasts this cherished icon:

Cosmo asks the question: “Are You Good-Girl Hot or Bad-Girl Hot?” But I’m confused, because all the questions are just about how sexually assertive you are.

I know they don’t literally mean “bad girls” are bad, but I’m still surprised that this quiz asks nothing about charitable contributions, honesty and kindness with others, willingness to support friends and family, or service to your country and community. Because it seems like if you’ve got all that going, your moral standing really wouldn’t be so tarnished by a miniskirt and a few furtive bathroom makeouts. Shit, you’ve earned them.

She said it here.

Yeah, so… there can be good people… usually women in such constructions, and bad ones, but what does that have to do with their sexuality? And when, now that I mention it, was the last time you heard of a man being good hot or bad hot? As opposed to (mostly) not hot or (occasionally) hot?

And finally, while in general I’m strongly disinclined to the idea that anyone ever earns sex, and therefore that they might deserve it where someone else wouldn’t, I really appreciate Holly’s inversion of the notion that miniskirts and makeout sessions makes one undeserving, or, I guess, that wearing prairie skirts and reading chapbooks all day instead makes one very, very good.

Oh, and for the record when I took that Cosmo quiz and making partner-preference adjustments I came up “badass bombshell.” Which doesn’t actually sound much like me at all but the accompanying text isn’t completely wrong

Striking the right balance between naughty and nice, you lure [your type] in by being playfully provocative… to a point. [My preference] are intrigued by [my type] who exhibit a sexy side but not so much that they come off as nasty,” says “Barbara Keesling, PhD, author of “The Good Girl’s Guide to Bad-Girl Sex.” Plus, by not putting it all out there, you keep [my preference] guessing about my sack skills and style. That anticipation is almost as hot as sex itself.

I’m not sure how my answer to the question “...now you’re in dire need of action. You prepare for a night out by” which was “Slipping on jeans, a tee, and a waist-chinching belt for a touch of sexy” makes me a either a badass or a bombshell but hey, it’s Cosmo.

Regina Lynn, writing at Sexier Sex, says here’s how to pick the best kind of lover:

This one’s easy. Find a geek.

Here are 5 reasons geeks make the best lovers…

She said it here.

I’m just going to list her five bullet points. You can follow the link to see if you agree with the reasons she gives.

• Geeks build it so you will come
• Geeks interact
• Geeks don’t shock easily
• Geeks know kinky people

• Geeks understand multidimensional relationships

I actually don’t think geeks are automatically the best type of lover, anymore than plumbers, poets, actuaries, stay-at-home parents, gardeners, or nuns** are. But her points about the way life online can enhance rather than detract from someone’s real-life interpersonal skills is actually pretty interesting.

[** Just testing: if you’re a geek that last item wouldn’t easily shock you. :-) —fl]

Hexy, guest posting at Feministe, says of the Florida mayor who was recently fired because his wife works in porn,

According to this article, Janke’s wife’s occupation raised concerns about whether he could “remain effective”. This line jumped out at me:

“When you become a public figure you are held to a different level of scrutiny and ethics,” Babcock said.

And, you know, that surprised me, because I don’t see any unusual ethics here. The Madonna/whore dichotomy, the whole idea that certain women are marked as OK to fuck, but not the type you take home? That’s a standard I see everywhere in day to day life.

Read the quote in context here.

In other words what different standards?

Hexy goes on to say the couple seemed to have been together long enough to parent teenage children, which would tend to imply that any alleged character flaws in the couple probably would have been noticeable before and when he was elected in the first place. Although being able to successfully parent teenagers in the first place might have been a clue that maybe she, and by extension he, didn’t have ZOMG TEH MYTHICAL SEX-WORKER DISEASED FEEIND!!! cooties on them in the first place. Because for the most part sex-worker diseased-fiend cooties tend to be, well, mythical.

And not to put too fine a point on it, as of the 2000 census Ft. Meyer’s Beach, Florida, had a population of only 6561. Consider everything mainstream stereotyping “knows” about small-southern-town mayors. When you think about that you might start wondering whether the porn company was exercising poor judgment in not holding the mayor’s wife to higher scrutiny and standards and firing her! Oh but that would be silly right? Because, maybe I guess, what everybody “knows” about porn actors are true but what everybody “knows” about mayors isn’t?