The Friday Sex Blog [Pussy]

¡Hola! Everybody…
Wish me luck… just wish me luck, don’t ask! (LOL)

* * *

-=[ Pussy ]=-

“Feeling a little irritated in the airport? Just say, ‘cunt!’ everything changes.”

-- Eve Ensler, Vagina Monologues

Pussy, cunt, chocha, toto, twat, beaver, the jade throne -- whatever you call it, the vagina has had a pivotal role in human history. Yet despite its crucial historical location, you might as well have been talking about the dark side of the moon when talking about what we knew of the vagina. This changed somewhat during the late 1950s and early 1960s when William Masters, M.D., and Virginia Johnson devised an experiment that allowed them to observe directly what happens deep inside the vagina during sexual arousal and intercourse. They had women masturbate to orgasm using a camera-equipped plastic penis, complete with a special light to illuminate the mysterious, lightless interior.

Masters and Johnson reported that the vagina is “a potential rather than an actual space.” Its soft, velvety walls (yummy) are collapsed together, touching each other. However, during the first stage of the sexual response cycle, shortly after initial sexual stimulation, two things happen: the vagina begins to lubricate and to expand. According to researchers, vaginal lubrication is the first physiological sign of arousal in women: within 10 to 30 seconds after stimulation begins, the researchers found, little beads of fluid begin forming all over the vaginal walls, giving them the appearance of a sweat-beaded forehead. The little beads rapidly spread to form that deliciously smooth, glistening covering men love so much.*

As a woman becomes increasingly aroused, the deepest two-thirds of her vagina begin inflating, almost like a balloon -- lengthening and expanding in what Masters and Johnson described as a “tenting” effect. The uterus and cervix pull slowly up and back, out of harm’s way. (Some women have retroverted, or tipped, uterus, causing the cervix to stay where it is, suspended in this widening vaginal cavity -- where a man’s penis may batter it, sometimes painfully, during intercourse.)

During all this, the vaginal walls dramatically change in color form their usual purplish red tint to a distinctly darker purplish hue. This is the result of vasocongestion -- the damming up of blood that’s the central event of sexual arousal.

As sexual excitement reaches the plateau stage (the second stage of the sexual cycle), the outer third of the vagina swells as it engorged with blood, to the extent that it actually narrows the vaginal entrance by up to 50 percent. (The deeper part of the vagina is expanding; the outer part is narrowing.) Masters and Johnson called this outer third the “orgasmic platform,” and it was this area that reacted most dramatically during orgasm. At the moment of climax, this whole outer ring begins spasmodically contracting at 0.8-second intervals, anywhere from 3-15 times. At the very highest level of sexual excitement, some women experience a sort of superorgasm: the orgasmic platform explodes into a spastic contraction lasting 2 to 4 seconds (knocking them knees), then downshifts into the 0.8-contractions of “normal” orgasm.

After, during the third (“resolution”) phase of the sexual response, the orgasmic platform rapidly drains of blood, the vaginal opening expands, and the inner, distended part of the vagina shrinks back to its original state.

Whew!

These findings point to one erroneous, but common, misconception men have about the vagina: that it’s deep, hammering penetration that drives women wild. Much of this misconception is the result of male-oriented erotic material that emphasizes the imagery of deep penetration: spikes, spears, lances, swords all plunging to the hilt.

But the truth is that for most women, the deepest two-thirds of the vagina are practically numb to the touch. Researchers have found that deep inside, the vaginal walls have few nerve endings. By contrast, the outer third of the vagina and the vaginal opening are exceedingly sensitive to touch.

On the other hand, more recent research have established that some women do find deep vaginal penetration incredibly pleasurable, reporting that it triggers a “deep” orgasm that’s different from an orgasm touched off by clitoral stimulation. Because the vaginal walls have so little feeling, sex researchers believe that some women enjoy the deep muscular contractions of the uterus and muscles of the pelvic floor (this can also be due to the more recently discovered “clitoral wings” that form a semi ring extending close to the anal area). Other women seem to be especially responsive to firm pressure on top of the front wall of the vagina, also called the G-spot.

I guess what I’m saying here is that basically when it comes to sexual enjoyment -- and sexual equipment -- all women are alike… but also different.

Love,

Eddie

*Note: for the sake of brevity I am using the accepted “stage model” of orgasm. I have problems with this stage-model (as do others) but I am using this model now only because it’s more convenient for my purposes today.

Check out the video to see a demonstration of the various vaginal moans:

Sunday Sermon [Arguing With the Future]

¡Hola! Everybody...
If you’re ever in NYC, make sure you include The Museum of Sex as part of your itinerary. It’s a fascinating place and they always have great, thought-provoking exhibits. I took pictures during Halloween (I was a pirate and I went out with a wench), but I just found out yesterday that I lost my camera...

* * *

-=[ Fear ]=-

Better to die once and for all, than to live in continual terror.
-- Aesop, (620-560 BCE), Aesop's Fables

I always remember a particular incident when I reflect on fear. I was visiting a friend and he had his five-year-old son bring me a glass of water. The kid loves the heck out of me and he was happy to do something that pleased me. His father, an intelligent and well-educated individual, filled a glass, gave it to his son, and instructed him to bring it to me. As the child was about ready to comply, his father warned him, “Make sure you don’t spill any of the water... ”

You know what happened right? No sooner that the father put the negative into the child’s head, he went and spilled a large amount of the water. I tried to explain to my friend later that in order to erase a negative the mind first has to entertain it. The only way to get rid of the negative is to think about it.

Don’t have recipient anal sex with Eddie!

See?

LOL!

I’ve been told that fear is having an argument with the future. If we would only remain mindful that the future is essentially uncertain, we would lessen our impulse to predict what could go wrong, and fear would end right there.

The other say, I was was reading something that reminded me of an episode from the old television series of the early 1970s, Kung Fu. I used to love watching that show, as that was about the same time I was introduced to the Buddhist martial art, Wing Chun.

Anyway, one episode clearly articulates the essence of fear. In this episode, the young apprentice, Grasshopper, as his blind teacher called him, was taken into a back room of the temple. In the room was an acid filled indoor pool about 20 feet wide. A narrow wooden plank served as a bridge from one side to another. The master warned the young apprentice to avoid the pool’s edge because he could fall in.

“In one week’s time,” The blind master told the Grasshopper, “you will be tested. You will have to walk across the pool of acid by balancing on the wooden plank. Be careful! Look at the bottom of the pool.”

The Grasshopper looked over the edge and saw many bones.

“They used to belong to young apprentices such as you,” the blind master informed.

Finally, the blind master too Grasshopper out of that dreadful room and into the sunlight of the courtyard. There, the other monks had erected a plank of the same measurements as the one over the acid pool, except it was raised on two bricks. For the next seven days, the apprentice’s only chore was to practice walking on that plank.

It was easy walking that plank in the courtyard. In a couple of days he could walk with perfect balance, eventually even doing it while blindfolded. Then the day of the test arrived.

The apprentice was led by his master into the room with the acid pool. Grasshopper could see the bones of the other apprentices who had fallen at the bottom of the pool. Grasshopper got up onto the end of the plank and then looked back at his master. “Walk!” the master commanded.

Now, truth be told, a plank over acid is a much narrower plank of the same size in a temple courtyard. Grasshopper began to walk, but his step was unsteady -- he began to sway. The more distance he covered, the more he wobbled and things looked bad for the young apprentice. As he continued, he lost more confidence and his balance faltered until amid a flurry of flapping of arms and a desperate cry for help... he fell in!

The old blind master laughed hysterically as Grasshopper splashed about in the pool. You see, the pool was filled with ordinary water, not acid. The old bones were thrown in as props to lend some authenticity. They had fooled Little Grasshopper, as they had fooled the TV viewers.

“What caused you to fall in?” asked the master once they had fished the young apprentice out of the pool. “Fear made you fall in, Little Grasshopper, only fear.”

Love,

Eddie

The TGIF Sex Blog [Sex & Science]

¡Hola! Everybody...
I got my new phone. I hated the Blackberry Storm, and now have the Blackberry Tour. the IT guy is on vacation, so it won't be connected to my desktop until he gets back, but at least I can receive calls and not answer them, as I usually do... LOL! If, however, you desire to have sex with me, please call (women only need apply LOL!).

It’s Friday, so it’s all about s-e-x...

* * *

-=[ Sex, Science & the Egg & the Sperm ]=-

The theory of the human body is always a part of a world picture. The theory of the human body is always a part of a fantasy.

-- James Hillman

It has fallen on science to sort through language and culture to arrive at an “objective” truth. but I have always been intrigued on how culture and language shape science. Since ancient times the feminine has been depicted as creative and fruitful but needing to be dissected, shaped, and controlled by “male” reason. The 17^th century English philosopher and inventor of inductive reasoning, Francis Bacon, writing against a background of widespread persecution of witches, described a scientific process that included images of nature as female, to be restrained, tortured, and probed by mechanical inventions. “Never ought a man to make a scruple,” he wrote, “of entering and penetrating into these holes and corners, when the inquisition of truth is his whole object... ”

Whew!

Sexual difference became an obsession of science during the Enlightenment of the 18^th century, with an exploration of the differences between the sexes, based on anatomy. In contrast, older, more traditional cultures had used ritual to link the social and natural worlds, so that rituals were the authority, and in a similar way, the rationalist thinkers of the Enlightenment claimed nature set down social laws that should be followed. In 1735, for example, the Swedish botanist Linnaeus published his classification of plants, describing them in terms of their sexual parts. The males were the dominant, defining parts; the females were secondary and submissive. Examples such as these were used as a “natural” justification of the subjugation of women. In other words, men and women were not equals.

Sound familiar?

In this way the identification of women with nature and emotion, men with culture and reason was created. This association of women with nature defined as motherly and physical -- so that their ideal role was in the home as nurturers -- but it was also used to link them with superstition, making them an obstacle to progress. Both men and women were defined biologically, but while men were free to engage many different parts of the public sphere, women’s roles were tightly controlled and limited by their “natural” function.

In 1759, Linnaeus came up with the term Mammalia, naming an entire class of animals after a feature lactating mammary glands (or “tits” in the vernacular), that only half ever possess. Linnaeus could have chosen external body hair, for example, as a better defining characteristic. However, he was embroiled in a propaganda war against wet nursing, and was more concerned about emphasizing how “natural” it was for a mother to suckle her own child. According the scientific community of the time, the breast was a symbol of the natural bond between mother and child, and in that way, women were limited in their role in the home at the center of the family. It was therefore seen as biologically normal and morally good and the emphasis on breastfeeding was another way of limiting women to domestic roles and keeping them from the public sphere and away from political power).

Lest you think this is some ancient way of thinking, please note that this bias still exists. Take note that today language and gender roles continue to confound science. Anthropologist Emily Martin wrote a thought-provoking essay on this issue called “the Sperm and the Egg.” In order to shed some light on the gender stereotypes hidden within the scientific language of biology, Emily Martin pointed to major scientific textbooks’ depiction of male and female reproductive organs as systems for the production of eggs and sperm. Therefore, within the female cycle, menstruation is clothed in the language of failure. The sloughing of the uterine lining is termed as “debris,” for example. On the other hand, male reproductive processes are described in positive terms such as the “maturation” or the immense manufacturing of sperm.

She noted that scientific descriptions served to reinforce gender stereotypes and in that way, functions of the egg and the sperm were misunderstood. For example, the egg was seen as passive. It does not move, but “is transported” along fallopian tube. In contrast, sperm are active: they “deliver'' their genes to the egg and, '”activate'” its developmental program. Some researchers likened the egg’s role to that of Sleeping Beauty: a dormant bride waiting for her lover’s magic kiss, which brings her to life! This language is in line with the tradition started by Linnaeus and Bacon. A tradition that has as its roots a form of misogyny.

Recently the researchers at Johns Hopkins University concluded that the sperm and the egg stick together because of adhesive molecules on the surfaces of each. The egg traps the sperm and adheres to it so tightly that the sperm’s head is forced to lie flat against the outer layer of the egg. In other words, the egg isn’t “passive” it is proactive in the reproductive process. The trapped sperm continues to wiggle ineffectively. If the digestive enzymes released by the sperm start to soften the zona just at its tip the fragile sperm can get oriented in the right direction and make it through the zona.

Yet, even this new version of the role of the egg and the sperm helped little in changing the narrative on the cultural level. Researchers who made the discovery themselves continued to write papers using the same stereotypical metaphor of sperm as the “active” party who “penetrates” the egg.

And there you have it, how even science is confounded by language and culture.

Love,

Eddie

The Friday Sex Blog [Erotica vs. Pornography]

¡Hola! Everybody...
I had a pleasant day yesterday spent with the woman I identified as “the Lush.” No, she’s not a lush, and she was quite embarrassed, but I assured she had nothing to be embarrassed about. Getting drunk on New Year’s Eve? Yeah! Wow! She’s a strange one!

Well, what she was really embarrassed about was her sexual advances toward me, and I teased her mercilessly about it. LOL! We have mutual friends and apparently, the New Year’s party host had assured her I would be there, so she’s had designs on me. Women! Humph!

Yes, she remembered everything and was cognizant of the fact that we could’ve had sex if I had pushed the envelope, but she was thankful I didn’t because, like me, she wants to be alert when it happens...

* * *

-=[ Erotica vs. Pornography ]=-

“The difference between pornography and erotica is packaging.”

-- John Preston

Since this is the first sex blog of the year, I should start off with the raison de etre for its existence. I realize there are new readers who may not know me and I know there are countless lurkers I have no clue about -- there are people who read me that I don’t know. Therefore, a little explanation regarding my reasons for writing about sex should be in order. However, I don’t such a blog ready this day, so you’ll just have to guess my intentions and motivation and pick up clues here and there. Suffice it to say that I believe Americans are some of the most sexually naïve and repressed people on the planet. This blog (posted only on Fridays) is an attempt, of sorts, to set the record straight.

Today’s post might get me deleted from The ‘Ply/ y360...

Language is probably the only human instinct and as such is one of our most powerful tools. How we use language to describe sex is both telling a self-fulfilling prophesy. Take today’s photo by the well-known photographer Helmut Newton. His work is often featured in mainstream publications (he was, after all, a great fashion photographer), and some would call this “erotica” as opposed to “pornography.”

Bullshit!

The whole question regarding the difference between erotica and pornography is a bullshit debate. For me, it’s a non-question. In actuality, it’s an anxious plea for approval rather than real dive into dialog.

This debate is a consequence of the repression of sexual speech. If we thought of sex as a matter of taste and individuality, as we do with the foods we eat, we wouldn’t ask stupid questions like, “Is it erotic food or is it pornographic food?” “Is it the kind of food for men or the kind of food for women?” “Should it be eaten in public or hidden away?” No, we would most likely say, “Eat! This is what keeps you alive.” (And please! for the muthafuckas who can’t read, this isn’t a discussion on the legal definition of obscenity!)

This is a tiring and tired argument. My intention is to squelch any further discussion on this sorry excuse of an argument because attempting to answer it with any authority is undo any progress we have made regarding sexual expression. The argument itself is reactionary, and it needs to be stripped naked -- its pious garments ripped off.

Now, I want to you to look at the following. I consider it art -- and I could care less whether it’s called erotica or pornography. Many of you will call it child pornography and posting it will probably get me kicked off The ‘Ply/ y360:

This is tangential to my discussion, but I think it’s necessary. Sturges has been attacked as a child pornographer, his studio raided and his equipment confiscated (the case was later thrown out of court). His work is core to my post today, however, because it hits at the very essence of how we arbitrarily exclude what’s sexual and what isn’t sexual, what’s accepted and what’s not. And believe me, this whole question is really about the acceptance (or rejection) of sexuality.

Some critics have condemned his work as thinly disguised underage pornography hiding behind the veil of fine art. Sturges and his defenders point to the “innocence” of his pictures of nude adolescents. More logically, Sturges criticizes the random division of people and their bodies into sexualized adults (over 18) and supposedly asexual children (under 18). The question really is: Should tasteful, non-exploitative erotic photography of adolescents be allowed? Is such a thing even possible? The photography of Jock Sturges presents a powerful case for the affirmative.

I would add that subjecting children to fear and teaching to be ashamed of their sexuality (erotophobia) is the cruelest abuse.

Here’s what people really want to hear when they attempt to make the distinction between erotica and porn: “Yes, based on conventions, society has decided that my fantasies and my sexual identity are valid, beautiful, and a turn-on to boot... but that person over there, sitting in the corner, their sexual expression is totally evil.”

Then, depending on whether you prefer the insinuation of erotica or the label of porn, you pin the preferred label on yourself and the creepy, icky label on the other person. Mission accomplished!

What’s truly creepy is creating such a dishonest discrimination to begin with. The truth of the matter is that your sexual speech is no better, more attractive, healthier, or morally superior than anyone else’s. The most intelligent thing to say to yourself when you encounter a style of sexuality unknown to you -- which can often be offensive, frightening, or unimaginable -- is to remind yourself of a variation on a Golden Rule: “Let them who are without desire cast the first stone.”

There are readers who are deeply appalled by the idea of sexual sadomasochism, which is often identified as pornographic. This form of sexual aversion is often accompanied by the rationalization that the only explanation for it would be an abusive and unloving childhood. The simple idea that it could be a matter of erotic taste seems unbelievable and even callous to them.

I would like to remind people that this kind of judgment -- the pathologizing of sexual behavior -- has been used with other forms of sexual preferences over the years, most notoriously with homosexuality. The kindest thing that was ever said about being queer, before the 1970s, was that homosexuals had endured tragic abuse and neglect in their families and that it twisted them for life. It was impossible to believe that such sexual desire could be either healthy or genuine.

But the real danger about such debates is that they are often settled by ignorance on what alarmists think people on the other side are doing. People who cringe at the idea of pornography have an inflamed concept and dangerous idea of it than the actual article can ever live up to. Generally, pornography is associated with the masculine and is supposed to be cruder -- something you buy at some sleazy place. Erotica is so respectful, you’ll find it in mainstream magazines (indeed, some of the best pornographic artists are fashion photographers). Think of Sister Wendy, who hosted a popular show where she critiqued the Great Masters on public television, lavishing praise on Renaissance portraits that display pubic hair.

I guess the point of all this is that the only thing being degraded is the notion that erotic expression deserves a place in public life -- a place entirely apart from banal commercialism and the dumbing down to the lowest common denominator. The prudes seem to have no problem with using sex to sell cars, or the violent explosion of imagery on Saturday morning cartoons, but squawk to high heaven if they see a Jock Sturges or David Hamilton.

We’re fearful of our own faces in erotic bliss, in the throes of desire. Perhaps it’s time we finally grew up and embrace our sexuality while throwing away the shame that binds us.

In Lust,

Eddie

The TGIF Sex Blog [Vagina]

¡Hola! Everybody…

OMG! I’m sorry people, I have to say that Palin gives women all over a bad name. Did you see the second Katie Couric interview?!! Utterly, painfully clueless… Someone described Palin as “Bush with tits.”

Speaking of cunts…

* * *

-=[ Pussy ]=-

“Feeling a little irritated in the airport? Just say, ‘cunt!’ everything changes.”

Eve Ensler, Vagina Monologues

Pussy, cunt, chocha, toto, beaver, the jade throne -- whatever you call it, the vagina has had a pivotal role in human history. Despite its crucial historical location, you might as well have been talking about the dark side of the moon when talking about what we knew of the vagina. This changed somewhat during the late 1950s and early 1960s when William Masters, M.D., and Virginia Johnson devised an experiment that allowed them to observe directly what happens deep inside the vagina during sexual arousal and intercourse. They did this by having women masturbate to orgasm using a camera-equipped plastic penis, complete with a special (cold) light to illuminate the mysterious, lightless interior.

They reported that the vagina is “a potential rather than an actual space” -- its soft, velvety walls (yummy) are collapsed together, touching each other. However, during the first stage of the sexual response cycle, shortly after initial sexual stimulation, two things happen: the vagina begins to lubricate and to expand. According to researchers, vaginal lubrication is the first physiological sign of arousal in women: within 10 to 30 seconds after stimulation begins, the researchers found, little beads of fluid begin forming all over the vaginal walls, giving them the appearance of a sweat-beaded forehead. The little beads rapidly spread to form that deliciously smooth, glistening covering men love so much.

[Note: for the sake of brevity I am using the accepted “stage model” of orgasm. I have problems with this stage-model (as do others) but I am using this model now only because it’s more convenient for my purposes today.]

As a woman becomes increasingly aroused, the deepest two-thirds of her vagina begin inflating, almost like a balloon -- lengthening and expanding in what Masters and Johnson described as a “tenting” effect. The uterus and cervix pull slowly up and back, out of harm’s way. (Some women have retroverted, or tipped, uterus, causing the cervix to stay where it is, suspended in this widening vaginal cavity -- where a man’s penis may batter it, sometimes painfully, during intercourse.)

During all this, the vaginal walls dramatically change in color form their usual purplish red tint to a distinctly darker purplish hue. This is the result of vasocongestion -- the damming up of blood that’s the central event of sexual arousal.

As sexual excitement reaches the plateau stage (the second stage of the sexual cycle), the outer third of the vagina swells as it engorged with blood, to the extent that it actually narrows the vaginal entrance by up to 50 percent. (The deeper part of the vagina is expanding; the outer part is narrowing.) Masters and Johnson called this outer third the “orgasmic platform,” and it was this area that reacted most dramatically during orgasm. At the moment of climax, this whole outer ring begins spasmodically contracting at 0.8-second intervals, anywhere from 3-15 times. At the very highest level of sexual excitement, some women experience a sort of superorgasm: the orgasmic platform explodes into a spastic contraction lasting 2 to 4 seconds (knocking them knees! LOL!), then downshifts into the 0.8-contractions of “normal” orgasm.

After, during the third (“resolution”) phase of the sexual response), the orgasmic platform rapidly drains of blood, the vaginal opening expands, and the inner, distended part of the vagina shrinks back to its original state.

Whew! LOL

These findings point to one erroneous, but common, misconception men have about the vagina: that it’s deep, pounding penetration that drives women wild. Much of this misconception is the result of male-oriented erotic material that emphasizes the imagery of deep penetration: spikes, spears, lances, swords all plunging to the hilt.

But the truth is that for most women, the deepest two-thirds of the vagina are practically numb to the touch. Researchers have found that deep inside, the vaginal walls have few nerve endings. By contrast, the outer third of the vagina and the vaginal opening are exceedingly sensitive to touch.

On the other hand, more recent research have established that some women do find deep vaginal penetration incredibly pleasurable, reporting that it triggers a “deep” orgasm that’s different from an orgasm touched off by clitoral stimulation. Because the vaginal walls have so little feeling, sex researchers believe that some women enjoy the deep muscular contractions of the uterus and muscles of the pelvic floor (this can also be due to the more recently discovered “clitoral wings” that form a semi ring extending close to the anal area). Other women seem to be especially responsive to firm pressure on top of the front wall of the vagina, also called the G-spot.

I guess what I’m saying here is that basically when it comes to sexual enjoyment -- and sexual equipment -- all women are alike… but also different.

Love,

Eddie

Check out the video to see a demonstration of the various vaginal moans:

The Friday Sex Blog [Talkin' 'Bout Sex]

¡Hola! Everybody...

I'd like to wish my dear friend, Dana, a very happy birthday. Dana and I have been connected for some time now and I love her creativity and her humor. Happy birthday sweetie!

I’m at an all-day strategic planning meeting, so I may not be able to finish today’s blog...

Today’s blog photo is courtesy of our very own Latina. Put simply, Latina is one of the most beautiful women I have ever looked at. Period. She’s what is euphemistically known as “raging beauty.” she also has a great sense of humor, which serves to make all the beauty seem so much more accessible and she comports herself with class. Dang!

* * *

-=[ Talking Fuckin’ ]=-

“There under the covers of the blankets, in the half dark with air as still as held breath, I felt more connected to her, more alive. Her body was aglow with dampness, her eyes were gleams. I kneeled between her legs, bent lower and tasted her. Tasted her, exploring the folds of her cunt, lapping at her, imagining honey smearing my mouth. She began to move and I could tell how much she wanted this, how gloried it made her feel. My cock strained... ”

People really don’t enjoy talking about sex. Most find it clichéd, offensive, insensitive. I will say that I’m somewhat sympathetic though I spend a lot of time doing just that -- talking and writing about sex. But I have to say there problems with sex talk: the vocabulary is inept and the sex is, well, not so clear.

If you want to know the state of any issue, all you have to do is look at its nomenclature -- a fancy word that describes the language used to discuss something. When it comes to sex, we have a lousy vocabulary. We have a small set of words that offend somebody or other, even though they’re as old as the English language itself and actually convey important meanings. We have a sort of Jim Crow-era style mentality when it comes to certain sex words -- a linguistic segregation. We have the ones we can say in front of children. one for the “ladies,” others for the old geezers, the ones for the upper classes, the ones for criminals -- god forbid if I were to try to be sensitive in my sex blog! Our language, nomenclature, for sex -- the medicalized, the four lettered, and the romanticized -- is indicative of our anxieties about sex.

Take a good old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon word like fuck, as an example. In our current movie ratings system, if you use fuck to mean actually having sex, then the film isn’t deemed fit for younger viewers and must be rated for mature audiences. However, If you use fuck as a swear word to express anger or outrage, you can still advertise the film to minors. It’s the hypocrisy of middle class values that they are more concerned with appearances, and fucking isn’t an “appearance,” it’s the dirty deed. We’re conditioned to use sex words for hostility but anxious to use them for warmth or sex.

Fuck got a new lease on linguistic life in the counter culture of the sixties, along with the rest of the underground language for the body. Fuck embraced free love and snubbed its nose at the Vietnam War all at the same time. Sociologists like to describe the so-called sexual revolution in terms of The Pill, but it was just as much a revolt of language -- sexual language. Artists of the time wanted to speak their minds with an entire public language at their disposal. Some, like Lenny Bruce, were censored. But in the end, the state lost. The words were emancipated -- at least for men. Blacks had been on the forefront of sexual language for decades, with artists like Redd Foxx and those before him, exploring and pushing the sexual language envelope, but that was underneath the radar. Later black comics, Like Richard Pryor, did all kinds of shit to let loose all kinds of words.

Eventually, feminism -- the cutting-edge side anyway -- emancipated women to use all the “unladylike” words, reclaiming bold language like dyke and pussy and claim them as women’s turf, not merely men’s labels.

People are sometimes afraid to use sex words because they fear they will be perceived as sexual. If we keep our lips sealed (or zipped *grin*), we can maintain the illusion that we are not sexual creatures. Fuck became a word that so-called “well-bred” women could use and it also defined a generation gap. Popular music turned it into a lyric. But saying the word stills says more about your political stance than about your sexuality.

Think about it: words describing other controversial or painful aspects of our life don’t get people so upset. No one ever says, “I can’t stand the word war,” or no one goes off on a rant that “the word torture is too cruel to use,” or screams, “I won’t allow anyone to say taxes in my home!” We manage to discuss all kinds of horrible and psychologically conflicted issues privately and publicly without choking up. Even words the insult and stereotype, like spic and nigger get more public debate and defense than George Carlin’s “seven words you can’t say on television.” Sex is the only topic where we blame language for holding us back. We suffer from a collective sexual tongue-tiedness. Almost any sexual expression we come up with bothers someone either because it isn’t sensitive enough, or it’s too Disneyfied.

I had a woman friend who hated the word cunt. I happen to like it because it’s -- I don’t know -- to me the word cunt crosses certain boundaries. It’s subversive, profane. I have met people who can’t even bring themselves to say cunt. The point is that perhaps we do need more words that are sexual. As a Spanish/ English bilingual, I can tell you English misses the mark totally, when it comes to matters of sex. But we’re afraid of the words we do have at our disposal. In a way, we’re afraid that if we let the dangerous words out, sex will be more dangerous, life will be uglier, we won’t know what to expect.

I personally believe we need that surprise. There’s nothing uglier than silence and denial. We’re choking on our own sex words, drawing a line between this word and that. I have a cock, and I have balls, intelligence, and an active imagination and sometimes I have a range of experiences that begs for as many names as I can conceive.

Love,

Eddie