The Meaning Of Leather, Rubber, and Latex Fetishes

Tall Leather Boot

Elements of sexual fetishes are common in most people’s sexual fantasies – the strong and attractive look of a high heeled shoe, or the invulnerable appeal of the “bad boy” character – but these mild fetishes are not necessarily preferred routes to sexual pleasure and release for everyone. In contrast, some people require the presence of a particular fetish in order to become aroused, however is cases where the fetishization is mild and perhaps not even noticed, we can learn something about the milder appeal to most, by understanding the role the fetish plays in more extreme examples.

In his book, Arousal: The Secret Logic of Sexual Fantasies, Dr. Michael J. Bader explains that with fetishes, “the part is treated as if it were the whole, or, conversely, a whole being is reduced to a part.” In sexual terms, a person is said to be fetishizing when they objectify a person, or personify an object, or as Bader puts it, “when we reduce something human to the status of a thing, or imbue things with human qualities.” Specifically, fetishes work to remove the human dimension of a sexual interaction, thereby freeing the fetishist of any guilt or worry they might have for their partner which would ultimately interfere with their ability to abandon control and climax.

How does leather, rubber, or latex function as a fetish? These materials are imbued with a human quality, being that they are suggestive of a second skin, one that is taut, smooth, shiny, and perfect. To the wearer or onlooker, the qualities of this second skin are suggestive of strength and invulnerability, youth even. The unconscious impact is to counteract feelings of worry or guilt on the part of the onlooker, and shame or insecurity on the part of the wearer. This is particularly evident when we imagine the opposite appearance of skin that is looser, vulnerable, older, and wrinkled.

Some examples of this fetish in action are given by Dr. Bader. He mentions a women who reported that she felt strong and invulnerable wearing an outfit made of leather, rubber, or latex. Her usual feelings of insecurity and weakness were smoothed over, so to speak, and she was able to become the strong, confident woman she longed to be. For someone who simply enjoys wearing these materials in a sexual scenario, but for whom their arousal does not rely on them, the element of strength and confidence will likely still be related to the appeal.

Another example is of a gay man who found leather on other men very attractive because it immediately suggested to him that this man would be a “hard-edged top,” thus allowing him to overcome his feelings of guilt for being strong or hard-edged himself. Only a partner who appeared stronger than himself would do, so he could assure himself that he couldn’t possibly hurt his partner by losing control sexually. My post on slave Master fantasies explores this dynamic further.

A third example is given, of a man who also felt guilty about hurting others were he to lose sexual control, and this man enjoyed being tied up to assuage his guilty feelings about this, a concept explored in my post on bondage and beating fantasies. He also enjoyed wearing a rubber suit, and specifically enjoyed being tied up by young boys. Unfortunately, not much explanation is offered for these aspects of the example, but perhaps the rubber suit served as a protective, and youthing layer, to decrease feelings of bodily shame around younger and presumably more smooth and taut sex partners?

Bader doesn’t mention the protective aspect of the second skin, the fact that one’s own skin is literally covered up, that one’s own senses are paved over, but I would suggest that this is another way to look at how this fetish serves the wearer. The covering of one’s own skin would likely have a numbing effect, therefore lending to the feeling of strength and invulnerability, because like with the use of drugs or alcohol, one’s senses are blunted. Yet another way to understand setting free feelings of shame or vulnerability.

“I urge you all today, especially today during these times of chaos and war, to love yourself without reservations and to love each other without restraint. Unless you’re into leather.” – Margaret Cho

Advertisements

What Do Bestiality Fantasies Mean?

"Bestiality Fantasies"

A fantasy about sex with an animal is so “wild” that very few people will admit to thinking such things, mostly due to the negative stigma associated with it. But does having such a fantasy mean you actually desire to have sex with animals? You certainly wouldn’t be the first person to think of such things. The practice of sex with animals, better known as bestiality, and also known as zoophilia, is a fetish that’s been around a long time. The numerous stories told in ancient folklore about sex with animals attests to this fact.

Most people today would likely regard bestiality as cruelty to animals, and it’s likely that only a small percentage of people act out this fetish in real life. But having a harmless fantasy about sex with an animal is not a likely indication that you desire to act this out in real life. However, you must admit, there is something very “animalistic” you desire, and you can be sure that this fantasy is there to help you reach an ecstatic state.

As mentioned in my first post on the meaning of sexual fantasies, we see that they are always a means of removing any unsexy feelings, like guilt, worry, and shame, so that a person can “let go” and reach climax. This basis for understanding is what I’ve learned from reading Arousal: The Secret Logic of Sexual Fantasies, by Michael J. Bader. In regards to a fantasy about sex with animals, we must remember that this is a fetish, which can mean the fantasy reduces the sexual partner to the status of a thing, (or attributes human qualities to objects, but not in this case). A fetish works by eliminating the human element present, so that the person can let go of any guilt and worry they might otherwise feel for their partner.

So combined with partner objectification, the animalistic sexual nature of such a fantasy represents a more “pure sex” with all pretense or social rules thrown out the door. It is uncomplicated and represents a desire to experience one’s most base and unchained sexual passion. The sexual partner is not human and so one can surrender to the sexual experience with impunity. And since the animal is free of all social and cultural conditioning about sex, the animal naturally responds to sex, well… animalistically, therefore freeing the fantasizer to do the same.

So if you find that sex with an animal is part of your sexual fantasy repertoire, as Bader puts it, this type of fantasy “negates any irrational beliefs that we are obliged to feel empathy and responsibility for the interior states of others.” This is similar to what we saw with fantasies of bondage and beating, but the key difference here is the fetishization – the dehumanization – of the partner, and as a result the abandonment of society’s sexual limitations and conditioning. Perhaps not everyone will have bestiality fantasies, but we must admit, we all know that some of the best sex always has that animalistic quality to it.

~ “I want to fuck you like an animal.” – Nine Inch Nails


Herpes Tests Are Bogus

"Herpes Tests Are Bogus"

In my last post I wanted to get into the wacky world of herpes testing, but there is enough to cover on this topic that it deserved a post of its own. After my research for the last post led me to the lack of evidence for the existence of all the medically relevant viruses, I wanted to know what exactly is looked for in a herpes test. They must be testing for the presence of the herpes virus in these tests right? No they don’t.

Virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka, Ph.D is one of a handful of doctors who assert that not even one of the medically relevant viruses has been isolated. In a 2005 interview, he voiced concerns regarding testing, and said that “In a test-tube containing an appropriate concentration of acids and bases, minerals and solvents, these blood proteins, also called globulins, will bind arbitrarily with other proteins. Thus you can make any sample taken from an animal or a person test arbitrarily positive or negative.” With this in mind, I’ll outline what happens during these tests after some preliminary discussion.

Let’s talk about antibodies first. The most popular type of herpes test is the antibody test. It’s considered “common knowledge” in the medical world that antibodies signify a strong immune response in the body, so the more antibodies you have, the more it is assumed that your body is reacting to and “fighting” a specific “pathogen.” However, since none of the medically relevant viruses have been shown to be isolated, this appears to simply be dogmatic belief since we can’t be sure that what’s been witnessed in a lab actually involves a virus. The funny thing is, in the case of AIDS, a rise in antibodies is supposed to signal an immunodeficiency, rather than a strong immune response. It can’t work both ways and yet this inconsistency has simply been overlooked by most. We know that the body produces antibodies, but this just proves the existence of antibodies, not a virus. In Dr. Lanka’s opinion, antibodies are simply “soluble blood proteins, which play a central role in the healing of wounds.”

So if there are no viruses present in these tests, what is it that’s been mistaken for them? As mentioned, only indirect markers believed to be associated with the herpes virus are looked for in testing, and the virus is simply assumed to be present in “positive” test samples. Torsten Engelbrecht and Dr. Claus Köhnlein M.D., authors of Virus Mania: How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits at Our Expense, say in their book that “The alleged viruses are in reality micro-particles produced by the body cells themselves.”

Let’s now review the testing methods. I’ll be using language like “assumed to be,” and “supposedly” a lot because although I am a layman on the subject of virology and microbiology, I do trust the opinion of virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka Ph.D., AIDS clinician Claus Köhnlein M.D., and science journalist Torsten Engelbrecht, who have concluded after years of research that there is a lack of evidence for the existence of any medically relevant virus. Therefore, when my sources used language that assumed the presence of a virus, I have opted for more skeptical language. I am going to explain the testing methods to the best of my ability while working only with Internet sources for means of explanation as I have never worked in a lab before. If you are more knowledgeable on the subject and I have made an error, please feel free to comment at the end of this post so that the error can be corrected. I thank you in advance. I obtained this list of testing methods from www.webmd.com.

There appear to be four main methods of testing, none of which find the presence of a herpes virus in your system. Instead, other indirect markers assumed to be associated with the presence of the virus are tested for, such as antigens, antibodies, and new pieces of gene substance, and this is what’s used to determine positive or negative test results.

The first testing method is a viral culture of a fresh sore that’s been swabbed. This means that the cells from the swab are added to a tissue sample and watched over a period of days to see if they “grow.” The swab contents are first prepared by suspending the cells in a liquid, perhaps with antibiotics added, and then the cell liquid is added to some kind of tissue (many of which aren’t actually skin cell tissue, such as mink lung or rabbit kidney), to see if degenerative changes occur in the tissue. If degeneration occurs, the herpes virus is assumed to be present and you get a positive result! This is apparently the “gold standard” test against which all others are measured.

A herpes antigen test is a second kind of test. Antigens are substances that provoke the production of normally one, but sometimes more, types of antibodies. Supposedly, on a herpes viruses, the antigens are located on the surface of an outer lipid bilayer which coats the “virus” and contains twelve surface glycoproteins (some or all of which would be the antigens this test is looking for.) For testing, cells from a fresh sore are smeared onto a slide and the surface of the cells are examined under a microscope for perhaps one or more specific antigens assumed to be specific to the herpes virus. Our bodies are full of all kinds of glycoproteins, and since the herpes virus has never been isolated, the presence of a particular glycoprotein cannot be said to automatically equal the presence of said “virus.”

A third type of test is a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. The test can be performed on cells, on fluid from a sore, or on blood or other fluid, such as spinal fluid. The test supposedly finds the genetic material (DNA) of the HSV virus and is said to determine the virus type, i.e. HSV-1 or HSV-2. Dr. Stefan Lanka explains what is happening with this type of test in his 2005 interview: “All that has been done is multiplying gene substance by means of the biochemical multiplication method “polymerase chain reaction” [PCR]. With this method it is also possible to arbitrarily multiply new, never previously existing, short pieces of gene substance… It is this artificially produced gene substance which is presented as a virus… That’s all that’s happening.”

The last type of test is an antibody test, and this is the cheapest and most popular method of testing mass numbers of samples. These are your ELISA and Immunoblot (Western Blot) tests. If you got a standard HSV test from a lab, this is likely what it was. It is a blood test in which the sample is searched for antibodies which are supposed to be attributable to a specific type of herpes virus (HSV-1 or HSV-2). It is simply assumed that the antibodies (produced in reaction to the presence of certain antigens) are present to “fight” a herpes virus “infection.” The results are also stated as an index value (e.g. 0.7 or 1.5) with a value above 1.0 meaning a positive test result. This means that you can have low levels of a “herpes antibody” in your sample and test negative. It’s not black or white, it’s more like shades of grey, which makes no sense since with herpes, its supposed to be that either you have it or you don’t.

During my research on these tests I came across a lot of concerns from the general public regarding false positives on their herpes antibody tests – confused virgins, people who had no symptoms but high levels of antibodies. Elizabeth Boskey, who has a Ph.D. in biophysics and is a researcher, writer, and educator on the subject of STDs, had some interesting things to say about this. To summarize, she said that if we are to make the “reasonable assumption” that around 50% of the population is “infected” with HSV1, and around 25% are “infected” with HSV2, then ELISA tests are approximately 92% accurate for positive results, and Immunoblot tests are about 94%-95% accurate for positive results. She then goes on to say “it is worth noting though, that if my prevalence estimates were off and we worked from the assumption that only 10% of the population is infected with either virus, then although almost all negative tests would be accurate, positive tests would only be accurate 55% to 85% of the time.” What if 0% of the population had the virus? I wonder how many “false positives” the tests would show then?

Dr. Lanka explains this a little better: that positive test results on either ELISA or Western Blot tests don’t make sense since it has not been shown that the proteins used from the test samples are from the actual virus. All that can be supposed it that the proteins come from whatever type of cells that were collected in the sample.

So it appears that when it comes to herpes testing, the best advice would be: Don’t bother! Testing gives no direct evidence of a herpes virus in your system, in addition to the lack of evidence that the virus even exists! If you missed my post on the German New Medicine perspective on herpes symptoms, check it out and see if it resonates for you. If you can figure out what sort of touch or separation conflict is causing your “herpes” symptoms, you can learn to downgrade the symptoms or even overcome them altogether. The best part is, there’s no virus, so you’re not contagious! There’s even a chance your symptoms occur because you are afraid to touch others and “spread the virus,” so take a load off and go enjoy life with no apologies! Guilt free kissing and sex are your birthright!

~ “I’m absolutely sure that no antibody test in medicine has any absolute meaning.” – Dr. Stefan Lanka, Ph.D.

* Disclaimer: I am not a doctor and this is not medical advice.


Herpes Isn’t Real

"Herpes Isn't Real"

If you suffer from herpes, at one point you might have experienced feeling like you’ve been unfairly turned into some kind of sexual leper now at the mercy of an unpredictable virus hiding in the shadows of your nervous system, waiting to strike at any moment. Most people go through an emotional crisis upon developing an obvious herpes sore for the first time, or getting back a positive test result for herpes, because herpes is for life, right? You are now expected to divulge this information to new romantic partners so they can choose whether or not they want to touch your gross herpes leper body and risk “infection.” Thanks to a rogue scientist, however, it turns out, there’s actually no evidence whatsoever that you’re infectious! You can’t give it and you can’t get it.

According to virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka, Ph.D., none of the medically relevant viruses have actually ever been isolated, and therefore there is no proof of their existence. This includes influenza, HIV, HPV, HSV, and others. In a 2005 interview, Dr. Lanka states that viruses have a supportive role in the interaction of cells, and that they are components of simple life forms and do not exist in complex organisms such as plants, animals, or humans. He also stated in the same interview that antibodies are soluable blood proteins which play a central role in wound healing. I couldn’t find the actual interview where these quotes were taken from (it may only be available in German), but the secondary source is the lecture videos Virus Mania 1 and Virus Mania 2, by Caroline Markolin, Ph.D.

NOTE: I eventually found an English translation of the 2005 interview with Stefan Lanka. You can read it here.

Dr. Lanka also notes that pictures of so called viruses, often found in medical textbooks, can’t claim to show a virus if they do not also provide the original publications which describes how and what from the virus was isolated, and that these original publications aren’t cited anywhere. So what are the pictures of? According to Dr. Lanka, “The photos of the alleged viruses are not showing an isolated virus but cells or cell particles.

Dr. Lanka has encouraged people not to simply believe him, but to instead ask the medical establishment to provide documentation regarding virus isolation. This was in 2001, I believe, and no documentation has been provided to date. He has been looking into the issue since 1994. Now of course there are going to be people who notice that they should have been exposed to the virus but who don’t show any symptoms, and people who show symptoms but are mystified as to how they could have been exposed. But since it’s taught to us all in our younger years that the infectious herpes virus is just a part of life, a whole viral mythology has been introduced to explain that you can carry the virus and never have symptoms, and you can pass the virus on to someone else even though you’ve never had any symptoms. Even if you’ve never kissed anyone, that cold sore could be from grandma, and if you’re a virgin, it could be a mix up at the lab.

So if there is no virus involved, what’s the freaking deal with your symptoms? Let’s look at it from the German New Medicine perspective. In GNM, skin conditions (any condition involving squamous epithelial cells) are simply biological programs running in the body that relate to some kind of touch conflict, or “separation conflict,” which cause meaningful changes in our tissues to support us through the conflict. The body’s biological programs run in two phases: a conflict-active phase, and a healing phase, where the healing phase generally runs as long as the conflict-active phase. The intensity of healing phase symptoms will directly reflect the intensity of the conflict.

A condition that occurs on the lips or genitals has a high probability of being related to sexual and romantic touch from another person, but can also be caused by things that we don’t want touching us, like a dirty straw, or a rapist. In the case of herpes we can equate the conflict-active phase with what is called the “incubation period” of the “herpes virus,” which is usually 2-14 days. Interestingly, the healing phase, which is where the sores appear, also tends to last 2-14 days on average as well.

In the conflict-active phase, there are no herpes symptoms. In fact, the area where the herpes sores will later appear is actually going through a process of numbing. This is the whole point of the biological program running in your body! To protect you from feeling either the separation or touch you don’t want to feel by numbing you. When the conflict is resolved, that’s when, for some, that magic tingle kicks in and you know the sores are on the way! Either way, the sores are painful and have a purpose to heal the numbed area and return it to normal.

I was introduced to this explanation for herpes at a GNM seminar, and I became so interested in the various manifestations of skin conflicts that I continued to explore the idea on my own. In comparing image search results on Google, I couldn’t help but notice that herpes sores look very similar to another very common condition that also involves the mucosa tissue of the mouth – canker sores. I also noticed that the symptoms of both conditions are virtually identical!

  • Both are ulcers or lesions that occur either singly or in clusters on the oral mucosa
  • Both can begin with tingling, itching, or burning sensations
  • Both can present as either blisters or ulcerations
  • Both are painful.Both can be accompanied by fever, swelling, general bodily discomforts
  • “Low immunity” conditions can make people susceptible to both
  • Emotional stress can be a factor in both
  • There can be inflammation and swelling in both
  • Both take about 2-14 days to heal
  • Healing in both can be hastened with B-12 vitamins, iron, and folic acid

The only difference in these two conditions appears to be the purported causation. Apparently there is no known cause for canker sores, and they are said to not be contagious. However, the infamous HSV virus supposedly causes cold sores, making the condition “contagious,” and you, a virtual leper to romantic partners and prospects. How fun for you!

Now, just because Dr. Lanka has found no evidence whatsoever for the presence of a herpes virus (or any other medically-relevant virus) does not mean that it doesn’t exist. However, if they do, their purpose would be to help reconstruct the body while it’s in healing, as Dr. Lanka has stated, and just like GNM has shown for the role of candida and bacteria in other tissues in the body. So even if one day a herpes virus is isolated, we can rest assured it’s a helpful microbe, and NOT the reason you’re having symptoms.

I have a little anecdote to share regarding herpes conflicts. Years ago, a friend of my ex had kissed one of my friends. This is a very good friend of mine and I had never seen her with a cold sore before. He, however, developed his first cold sore the very next morning! Usually it is stated that there is an incubation period before the sore appears but for him it was instantaneous. He was so pissed! He was convinced that my friend had given it to him. Knowing what I know now, I can see that he was probably in a conflict-active phase where he missed the touch of kissing a woman. Once that wish for contact was fulfilled, he went into healing, and boom! Cold sore.

I wanted to get into the wacky world of herpes testing in this post as well, but it’s getting a bit long, so I’ll save that for next time. However, I will say this: the amount of false positives is of particular concern since not one of the tests offers direct evidence of the virus, only other markers assumed to be associated with the virus. So congratulations to us all! It appears we can neither contract herpes from anyone or infect anyone, and, if the herpes virus does exist, it’s not what’s causing your sores, it’s what’s helping to heal them. I think that’s cause for celebration! Happy Hallowe’en!

“The alleged viruses are in reality micro-particles produced by the body cells themselves.” – Torsten Engelbrecht and Dr. Claus Köhnlein M.D., Virus Mania: How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits at Our Expense

* Disclaimer: I am not a doctor and this is not medical advice.


What Do Fantasies of Giant Breasts Mean?

"Giant Breasts"

I’ve been on a personal quest lately to gain a deeper understanding of the meaning behind sexual fantasies, and have been reading a book by Michael J. Bader, called Arousal: The Secret Logic of Sexual Fantasies, in order to gain some insight on myself. The giant breast fantasy isn’t exactly my thing, but it certainly is a common thing, and I found Bader’s explanation of it pretty interesting, so I thought I’d share.

We already know that hetero men love breasts. Some guys refer to themselves as “breast men” after all, so no surprise there. But have you ever wondered why there’s a sexual fascination with women’s mammary glands whose biological purpose is to feed milk to young infants? If you made the obvious connection and guessed it has to do with motherly nurturing, you’d be right, but according to Bader there’s a lot more to it than that. Actually, this might get weird because it has nothing to do with mothers, and everything to do with mothers.

As I covered in my first post on sexual fantasies, we once again see the primary purpose of a fantasy is to relieve feelings of guilt and worry, which are brought on by pathogenic and negative beliefs about the self and others. Orgasm can only be reached once these harmful beliefs are somehow negated, and the fantasy works to do just that. So what sort of negative beliefs does the breast man have?

According to Bader, he likely has a pathogenic belief that he is undeserving of caretaking, and that his needs are burdensome and greedy, that a woman would experience giving to him as depleting. Therefore he feels he has to prove himself worthy of any caretaking from women. He actually feels guilty needing nurturing from a woman, and feels like it is coercive because, after all, he believes women have nothing to give. That’s pretty harsh. Why would he believe these things? Childhood neglect is a big part of it.

He likely had a relationship with his mother that was very one-sided, one that was all about her: her needs, her moods, her wants. He sees his mother as weak and fragile, as someone who he has to worry about all the time. Bader notes that the result of this relationship is a belief that women don’t “have the capacity or inclination to devote themselves to a man’s pleasure or to their own,” and so to want such a thing leads to extreme guilt.

So with all that unsexy guilt for wanting nurturing in the way, he fantasizes that a woman is turned on by “mothering him,” a.k.a giving him the breast, so that he can get sexually excited. For some men this means fantasizing about actual breastfeeding during sex, but it’s not that he is making any direct sexual connection to his own mother. It’s all about removing the guilt and worry he was trained to have for women. He needs to receive pleasure without having any responsibility for his partner’s needs. He needs her to happily give to him and expect nothing in return.

In the breastfeeding/breast sucking scenario, where the woman wants to give to him and is gratified by giving to him, he is free to let go of the guilt. Not only does she not need him to be her caretaker, she wants him to take from her and isn’t depleted when she gives him maternal nurturing. His desire to take is met with her desire to give. His negative unconscious belief that women are too preoccupied, burdened, depressed, or busy to take pleasure in nurturing him is thus negated. And the bigger the breast, the more nurturing she has to give him.

So there you have it! Even in “extreme” cases where a man is turned on by fantasies of breastfeeding from a woman, it has nothing to do with any creepy latent desire to be sexual with his mother. It’s just that his mother was a selfish narcissist! Or maybe just dysfunctional and depressed. Either way, it’s not about his mother, ladies, it’s all about your enthusiasm and happiness to give to him… and your super luscious breasts.


Is “Taking One For The Team” Just An Excuse?

"Taking One For The Team"

This post could have also been titled, The Enigmatic Mating Dance of the Human Male, because when I think about guys picking up women I am reminded of those dancing birds of paradise from the BBC’s Planet Earth series. Sometimes a guy just needs his friend to keep the friend of the woman he’s interested in company so he can “do his dance” with her complete attention.

“Taking one for the team,” usually refers to how the male’s friend keeps the female’s friend company during the enigmatic mating dance, but can also work vice versa, though it’s more rare. It is meant to help others and is thus a noble human behaviour. It is making a selfless sacrifice for the rest of humankind! I mean, how awkward and weird would it be if someone didn’t keep the woman’s friend company and she was just left standing there all alone rolling her eyes and mumbling obscenities under her breath?

That said, I have a few observations, and it has nothing to do with the true and awesome definition of taking one for the team, it has to do with using this great and noble behaviour as a ruse! Yes, a ruse! To cover up the fact that you had sex with a) someone you weren’t attracted to, or b) someone you fear your friends wouldn’t approve of.

Now I’m sure many people who’ve indulged in too much alcohol before can name at least one time they hooked up with or slept with a person they weren’t that attracted to. It does happen, and it’s just one of those things, and I totally get that no one wants to admit they got way too blasted to tell the difference. So saying you took one for the team in this case is likely just code for, “I don’t want to talk about it.” No biggie, mistakes happen. Better luck next time.

What is actually of interest to me is the use of the term to describe a liaison for which a person is similarly ashamed, but not because they weren’t attracted to their sex partner, but because they fear their friends wouldn’t approve of their sex partner even though they got their world rocked! Yeah, we are that judgmental.

What does that say about us as a culture that sex has been reduced to such a superficial egotistical expression of status-seeking and friend impressing? That we look outside ourselves for our cues to attraction rather than within? That the simple meeting of two mutually attracted bodies for the sole purpose of pleasure has to be accounted for and explained afterwards? There’s so many other layers involved in attraction, like smell and intellect and other oddities, there’s no way another person can decide who you should sleep with!

If all we’re focused on is trying to impress everyone else than I dare to say we’re literally wasting our lives and are right on track for that impending life crisis to hit. At which point, I might add, you can’t get those wasted years back! So what are you waiting for? Live! Live! When it comes to sex, trust your body, not your friends. And don’t apologize for it – ever!

“Sex at age ninety is like trying to shoot pool with a rope.” ~ George Burns


Dear Men, I Was Probably Just Being Nice

"Nice Woman"

Dear Men,

When a woman is being nice to you, it does not always mean she likes you. It doesn’t mean she doesn’t like you either, but please don’t let that awkward moment where you prematurely start fiddling with her shirt strap be the moment where you find out she isn’t actually into you. It’s just gets weird at that point, probably for you as well, and it’s sooo unnecessary. Same goes for those awkward one-armed side-hugs.

I’ve actually had boyfriends in the past who criticized me for being nice to other men because “he’s gonna think you’re into him.” And lo and behold many of them did. And they were wrong.

You know what’s also weird? Not being nice to people because I’m afraid that if I’m nice they’re going to misread it and start acting inappropriately. But if I’m not nice it’s all, “she’s a bitch, blah” when I would actually prefer to be nice to you! So, I hope we can come to an agreement on this, that if I’m being nice there’s nothing more to read into with that. If you want to read into more, there’s always body language and other cues you can use. I think many people have written many books on the subject of other cues. Thanks for listening.

Love,

Courtenay