August 2018 Sex Media Recommendations

August 25th, 2018

I’ve been excited to post this ever since I posted the first one. The blog format works a little better than social media since posts stay on the front page where you can see them longer. Plus, I often come across great content but am not able to immediately share it, so my readers and followers never get that recommendation. I find that knowing I want to recommend media makes me think more critically about what I am watching or reading and how it might apply to my followers, too. Finally, there’s a bit of accountability. If I want to have things to include, I need to make sure I am keeping myself educated.

Reading

I am currently reading The Loving Dominant by John Warren. I’ve had it long enough that I don’t even recall when I bought it. Although, my Amazon history surely knows. I know there’s a more recent edition than mine (second, revised in 2000), and I would recommend that to anyone who might want to check out this book, which tackles both the physical and psychological responsibilities of being dominant. Mine seems a bit dated in ways that I assume the 2008 version wouldn’t.

I don’t normally read as many books about sex as I did last month, but I already have another one to review sitting in front of me, and I am excited about it. Here’s hoping it winds up on next month’s list.

Watching

This month, I finally decided to use my new rope, which means tutorials. Although I didn’t buy Twisted Monk rope (soon!), I headed to their tutorials on Youtube. I especially enjoy how the tutorials show a few modifications for different body types and abilities.

Naomi Wolf and Jim Pfaus talk sex in this Youtube video from a conference at Concordia University. They touch on desire, how the brain responds to sexual cues, the interplay between chemicals and culture, and more. The video was posted in 2013, but it still has useful information if you have time to watch it.

Listening

While last month’s list included a bunch of sex-specific podcasts, I switched things up a bit this month by listening to podcasts that happened to do some amazing episodes about sex, even though the podcast theme isn’t necessarily human sexuality.

First, we have the Gonad series from RadioLab, which includes some episodes that delve into the science of gender and just how complicated it really is. The episodes go far deeper than chromosomes, and I learned a few things that I could not help but share.

Secondly, I started and proceeded to listen to every episode of Science Vs, a podcast hosted by an adorable Australian woman that takes an unbiased look at a variety of topics. I really enjoy the show and am so sad it’s in between seasons. There are episodes about circumcision, the G-spot, birth control, sex addiction, and more. But they’re all worth listening to.

Another podcast by the same company is Reply All, which focuses on Internet-related topics. The podcast episode about the consequences of the FBI’s seizure of Backpage.com is incredibly revealing.

Do you read, watch or listen to anything related to sex this month that you want to share? Sound off in the comments!

Comment

Categories: media recommendations

Thank you

August 22nd, 2018

Thank you all for participating in my blog anniversary giveaway. The turnout was astounding and I will have more thoughts to share once I post my winner announcement. Unfortunately, that will have to wait as I am currently on vacation and opted not to bring my laptop. I thought there would be a bit more of a buffer between the end of this giveaway and my travel.

You can look forward to that announcement and winner notifications toward the end of this month. Thanks for your patience.

2 Comments

Categories: Giveaways

Scoop

August 17th, 2018

Scoop Vibrator
$43.99 from SheVibe

The last few reviews focused on items that are available to win from my anniversary giveaway, and this post is no different. Well, it’s a little different: it’s not for a book. The focus of this is a newish vibrator from Company Screaming O.

This toy is also a bit of a departure for ScreamingO, a company you may know better for vibrating cock rings that are generally single-use and, well, kind of chintzy. I have used a similar toy exactly once, and that might have been too much. It wasn’t by ScreamingO, but I decided that the concept of the flimsy ring with attached bullet was worth no one’s time. In my head, I associated low-quality rings with a low-quality company.

So what made me change my mind and decide to review the Scoop for Screaming O?

 

  1. The shape really caught my eye. I enjoy clitoral stimulators, but it’s been years since once really did it for me.
  2. Scoop is a rechargeable toy — it’s right there in the tagline.
  3. It’s made from TrueSilicone, which I assumed means silicone (more on that in a bit)
  4. This is not a single-use toy
  5. The price of Scoop is quite affordable (you can currently buy it for $44 from SheVibe!). I know my readers want to know if there are affordable toys that are worth it

I think we can break it down by those points pretty much.

The shape of the Scoop reminds me of a large tongue. It’s much thicker at the base and curves and tapers toward the tip, which is a wide “point.” Scoop looks quite plush, and the silicone is dense. I would hesitate to call it soft because it’s so dense. There’s some give at the tip, but I honestly suspected it to be softer. You can use the Scoop with a lot of pressure without doing any damage, however. A toy such as the Tango feels much sharper when I press it against my body.

However, the Scoop’s shape does fail to really wow me. Perhaps the rounded edge lacks something pinpoint or the density of the tip dulls the pressure and sensation. Another reviewer mentioned using Scoop on its side rather than the tip.

The rounded base makes the Scoop easy to hold, and the single button is just as easy to use. However, it’s near the base in a location that I just don’t love. I actually wish the button was closer to the tip. I don’t know if I am alone in this, but buttons located near the base of toys have almost always been awkward for me.

The Scoop is curious from other vibrators in one way, however: when you press the button to turn it on, it jolts into life after you hold the button. I mean, the vibrator actually seems to jump. It doesn’t take away from use, but it does make the Scoop seem like it lacks a bit of finesse. The vibrations of this toy are moderately rumbly at first.

Scoop has twenty functions, and you need to press the lone button to cycle through each of them. Although you can simply hold the button to turn it off, there’s no easy way to cycle through the settings. And to move past steady vibration, you need to press the button ten times. I have never needed ten separate modes of vibration, and the higher ones are impossibly buzzy and blend together.

I am used to this with vibrators but wish it wasn’t the case. My hand absorbs a lot of the vibrations during use. The vibrations are strongest on the inside of the scoop and not the tip, perhaps because of the density of the silicone. This isn’t the spot I’d imagine most people would press against their sensitive parts. It’s particularly awkward for clitoral use but could work for nipple stimulation.

  • Slow pulsation
  • Pulsation that increases in speed until a steady vibration
  • Medium pulsation
  • Medium-fast pulsation
  • Zippy pulsation followed by a trill
  • Fastest pulsation
  • Long pulsation
  • Short, fast pulsation that almost feels steady
  • Medium pulsation followed by steady vibration
  • A number of medium pulsation followed by two bursts of the fast pulsation that almost feels steady

These all seem similar to describe, and they feel that way, too. Y’all know that I’ve never been a huge fan of settings, but someone who enjoyed them would likely find them too similar and be annoyed by having to press the button the Scoop twenty times to get to a single one. It would be nice if Scoop remembered the last-used setting.

According to the description, you can get an hour’s use out of the Scoop. I didn’t time it, exactly. It’s in that range. But there’s a definite loss of power as it happens. Some vibrators do promise longer use time, however. I also find the charger finicky. Scoop is like a few vibrators that simply have a hole in the silicone that covers the port and makes the toy waterproof. The plug doesn’t always line up (you’ll know because the LED lights up), and it usually takes me two attempts to line it up. Not a huge deal, but a little annoying.

My next concern is one shared by many: what the hell is True Silicone™? If it’s actually silicone, how is it trademarked — and why? Many toy lovers and bloggers are tired of the gimmicks. Screaming O sent me a data sheet that showed at True Silicone had been tested by a lab, but I was still curious. So I lit it on fire or, rather, I tried. The Scoop passed the flame test without a mark. I just wish ScreamingO was more transparent.

Despite some of my qualms about the Scoop, I think it is a decent option, especially at under $50. It’s not perfect, and it takes a lot to get me off with the Scoop. I think this is mostly a shape issue, and I now wonder if perhaps the Moove might be a better toy for me shape-wise. At the very least, I would be open to trying other ScreamingO toys, so I think the company is headed in the right direction (if stumbling there).

4 Comments

Categories: Reviews, Vibrators

Science of Sex: How Science Got Sex Wrong

August 11th, 2018

Although I’ve dedicated most of this series to the awesome research being done about sexuality as well as those who take the time to study it. In some ways, the field is lagging behind other scientific endeavors, so every little bit counts. However, I am going to make a departure in this post and discuss the missteps science has taken when it comes to sex.

Check out previous Science of Sex posts here.

how science got sex wrong

Science is really a process and scientists as a group does not always agree. But sometimes these mistakes have been costly, traumatic even. As I type those words, the specific error that comes to mind is the listing of homosexuality in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. For years, being gay wasn’t an accepted orientation; rather, it was a mental health condition. It wasn’t until DSM III when homosexuality was removed entirely.

The same edition of the DSM was the one to back off the idea that sadomasochism might not be a red flag for mental health issues, either. Although, it wasn’t until the DSM 5 that BDSM was reorganized as a unusual sexual interest and not a disorder. Since then, studies have shown that kinksters are not more mentally unhealthy than everyone else and may even be healthier in some respescts!

Speaking of disorders that were reclassified with the publication of DSM 5, gender identity disorder has only recently been reclassified as “gender dysphoria.”

The inclusion of homosexuality in the DSM was the very metric by which people were allowed to gaslight and stigmatize anyone who wasn’t straight. People whose sexual orientations and interests could land them in an asylum or potential prison. These inclusions affected whether — and how — medical and mental health professionals treated patients, and some people were reluctant to seek medical help because of that.

You simply can’t treat a human humanely when their natural sexual proclivities are listed in the book that doctors use to diagnose people.

Although the people who created and updated the DSM are more recently guilty of this, it’s not a new occurrence. We all learned about Freud, the Oedipus complex and how people can get stuck in certain development stages never to reach their full potential as adults. However, the more you learn about psychology, the more you realize that Freud was wrong about everything least of all sex.

Freud was the one who championed the idea that women who orgasmed from clitoral stimulation were achieving orgasm in a lesser way because they were stuck in one of those latent phases. In fact, most women require clitoral stimulation to orgasm (and many prefer it even during intercourse). We now know there’s nothing wrong if a woman doesn’t orgasm from penetration alone. This ideology has been repeated for years, and even in 2018, women strive to orgasm the “right’ way, as if their body’s abilities and pleasure are lesser when derived from clitoral stimulation. Did I mention how it contributed to the willful ignorance of female sexuality as a legitimate research subject?

It’s hard to break old habits, but there are hurdles even when researchers are using fact and science to explore sexuality. More recently, for instance, a study concluded that over 2/3 of the improvement in female sexual dysfunction could be attributed to placebo and not to the medications that were being tested. You might recall that both Emily Nagoski and Lori Brotto argue that medication may not be the best treatment for female sexual dysfunction (which is poorly defined, to begin with).

Aside from the efficacy of treatments, researchers must contend with self-reporting: many studies simply ask people about their sex lives and must rely on participants to answer honestly and completely. This has led to some interesting discrepancies. Time after time, men report having more sexual partners than women. A new study suggests that the way men count partners (estimating versus women’s’ actual counting) and qualify sexual activities accounts for much of this discrepancy.

But it goes further than that: people are terrible at remembering how much sex they actually have. One study revealed that people ‘remember’ having sex twice as often as they actually did it!

Even if people were perfectly honest and reliable, it’s important to examine just who is responding to these studies. Are these people more sexual or more willing to discuss sex (you can join a sex study, too)? Does this skew the numbers? And are these studies representative of the actual population? Sex, orientation, and skin color of people in surveys may not correspond to real life. Many researchers statistically analyze their results because of this, but not all surveys are created (or analyzed) the same.

I’m already over 700 words and have yet to mention small sample sizes, lack of control groups, and conclusions that ignore real experiences. Nor have I discussed the click-bait headlines and titles painted with broad strokes when journalists simply want clicks and not true understanding of human sexuality.

Perhaps that’s why when people get it right and reveal something about our inner workings, it matters that much more.

Further Reading

6 Comments

Categories: Science of Sex

Sex Q&A by Anne Hooper

August 7th, 2018

Sex Q&A
$8.75 from Amazon

Sex Q&A is aptly named because the format, other than a few asides, in-depth tutorials and quizzes, is simply question-and-answer. A quick Google of Anne Hooper shows that she has been a columnist for several outlets including Cosmo and the Daily Mail. Ms. Hooper’s introduction states that the questions in the book are based on the many questions she’s received as a columnist; although, some of them could very well be reprints. It does seem as though the questions in Sex Q&A are specifically worded to hit on a variety of sexuality subjects.

This book is split into eight chapters, each of which ends in a quiz that tests your knowledge and skills about the subject of that chapter: sex in relationships, questions men ask, questions women ask, sex when you’re single, spicing up your sex life, pregnancy and beyond, questioning your sexuality, and your sexual health.

As I mentioned, each chapter ends with a sort of skills test. It’s all very Cosmo, but I didn’t find it particularly revealing. In fact, I skipped right over the quizzes. Some people might find them entertaining or perhaps useful if they’re struggling with sex in their relationship or are less well versed in this subject than I am.

Most sections also have a “Case history” or two where Anne describes specific problems experienced by couples or individuals and how the general advice can specifically be applied. But some of these cases don’t show how the advice actually helped; they’re just Ms. Hooper describing what could help. Without proof of improvement, the advice can seem a little weak,

Although printed nearly 20 years ago, Sex Q&A manages to be ahead-of-its-time in some ways. It’s incredibly sex-positive, accepting of casual sex and masturbation, and pretty body-positive, too. It’s not homophobic, and Anne does a good job at answering questions about what is “normal.” She recommends a variety of sexual activities and doesn’t just focus on the man’s pleasure like so many sources. Anne also mentions science and theories about science that have only recently come across my radar. They certainly would have been new to be 17 years ago!

But Sex Q&A isn’t perfect. First, I would have liked a dedicated section on kink. Ms. Hooper does mention some kinky activities and related concepts such as contracts and negotiation, but she doesn’t explicitly introduce certain ideas or tools. For example, she casually mentioned caning during a section on impact play without discussing how many consider caning to be a more extreme form of impact play. I think she could have recommended a paddle or flogger that might have been more beginner-friendly, especially because the target audience of Sex Q&A doesn’t seem to be especially kinky.

Similarly, I would have liked to see more information on toy and lube safety as those two topics have come a long way since the early 2000s. Aside from recommending them in general and advising against using oils with condoms, Anne doesn’t include a lot of specifics. She does try to define a fewtypese of toys, but it doesn’t seem incredibly inclusive, and there’s so much more information to be had these days. One thing I note, in particular,r is how Ms. Hooper defines a clitoral stimulator only as a part of cock ring and not as a standalone toy.

Although it’s not homophobic, it certainly is cis-normative. The assumption is that men are having sex with women, and they’re cisgendered. I realize that there has been a lot of advancement in the last two decades, however. For the time, I’m sure those conservative attitudes were pretty contemporary. Sex Q&A is also dated. For example, more recent research has cast a shadow of doubt over the significance of testosterone on sex drive, and most people now consider the G-spot as part of the clitoris. These answers could use some clarification.

There are a few topics that were all the rage when this book was published but proved to be fads since then: penis piercings and autofellatio, among them. The distinct lack of information on the contraceptive sponge is also indicative of the time when this book was printed.

Despite being a bit dated, Sex Q&A is full of a lot of information. Because it runs the gamut, Sex Q&A is not ideal for everyone. But the generalized advice would be great as part of a sex ed library or perhaps for young adults and the sexually inexperienced.

8 Comments

Categories: Books

Image © MisterUnlucky; used with permission.