ponderings of the pococurante

Spurred by the possibility of some hot pictures, I clicked on the link to a Chinese article about the pleasures of sex without penetration.* The article talks about we often place too much emphasis on genitals and penetration, oblivious of the body’s other erogenous zones, ignorant of the polymorphous pleasures that we’d unlearned in the process of accepting certain social definitions of sex and sexuality.

The People’s University has a famous sexologist—Pan Ruiming—who conducted a survey on the sex lives of the Chinese, and the article reproduces (pun kinda intended) the following results: men felt that oral stimulation from women could raise their pleasure 35%, while using their mouths to pleasure a woman could raise pleasure 45%–though it’s not clear who is on the receiving end of that raise. I think it’s the men. For the gals, kissing can raise their pleasure 43%, while receiving genital area stimulation could raise their pleasure 64%. What surprised me most was what came next (pun kinda intended): touching their own breasts and nipples could raise pleasure by 74%, but if they do it “fully”, they can raise their pleasure 212%.

This is no doubt of great succor to the all the men in the world that are lousy in bed. 212 percent, and all you have to do is to remind her to do some of the work herself. Who said there’s no such thing as a free munch in this world?
Here’s the passage in Chinese:

中国人民大学性社会学教授潘绥铭2000年完成的中国人性生活调查发现，男性主要通过采取各种新鲜的性交方式来增加快感，被调查男性认为妻子用口刺激自己可以提高35%的快感，自己口刺激妻子可以提高45%的快感。女性需要的则更多是各种爱抚，在性生活中接吻可提高43%，丈夫抚摸自己的外阴可提高64%，抚摸自己的乳头提高74%，爱抚很充分的话可以提高212%。由此可见，有时单纯的皮肤摩擦都能擦出炽热的火花。

*don’t worry people, I’m fine. And healthy.

Spurred by the possibility of some hot pictures, I clicked on the link to a Chinese article about the pleasures of sex without penetration.* The article talks about we often place too much emphasis on genitals and penetration, oblivious of the body’s other erogenous zones, ignorant of the polymorphous pleasures that we’d unlearned in the process of accepting certain social definitions of sex and sexuality.

The People’s University has a famous sexologist—Pan Ruiming—who conducted a survey on the sex lives of the Chinese, and the article reproduces (pun kinda intended) the following results: men felt that oral stimulation from women could raise their pleasure 35%, while using their mouths to pleasure a woman could raise pleasure 45%–though it’s not clear who is on the receiving end of that raise. I think it’s the men. For the gals, kissing can raise their pleasure 43%, while receiving genital area stimulation could raise their pleasure 64%. What surprised me most was what came next (pun kinda intended): touching their own breasts and nipples could raise pleasure by 74%, but if they do it “fully”, they can raise their pleasure 212%.

This is no doubt of great succor to the all the men in the world that are lousy in bed. 212 percent, and all you have to do is to remind her to do some of the work herself. Who said there’s no such thing as a free munch in this world?
Here’s the passage in Chinese:

中国人民大学性社会学教授潘绥铭2000年完成的中国人性生活调查发现，男性主要通过采取各种新鲜的性交方式来增加快感，被调查男性认为妻子用口刺激自己可以提高35%的快感，自己口刺激妻子可以提高45%的快感。女性需要的则更多是各种爱抚，在性生活中接吻可提高43%，丈夫抚摸自己的外阴可提高64%，抚摸自己的乳头提高74%，爱抚很充分的话可以提高212%。由此可见，有时单纯的皮肤摩擦都能擦出炽热的火花。

*don’t worry people, I’m fine. And healthy.

A design from Tobias Wong I was reading a bout a guy named Tobias Wong, a designer who comes up with some quirky and good stuff. The thing pictured above is an Ottoman that as 12″ deep hole and vibrates…anyway, I wish I had one of those. Like I wish I had that since the time i was say, 13. That might have saved me a whole lotta trouble in this life.

This shit is pretty funny…

Technorati Tags: avril lavigne, artist, sex, sex ed, education, 70s, 1970s, spoof, humor, comedy

Powered by ScribeFire.

Genuine eros makes us desire a particular person; crude desire is satisfiable by fungible bodies.
– Edward Craig (general editor), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Technorati Tags: love, romance, eros, sex, relationships, men, man, women, woman, philosophy, desire, body, lust

Powered by ScribeFire.

But the aggressive ad campaign isn’t the only thing that sets Chemistry apart in the flourishing business of finding love online. The company is an offshoot of Internet meet-market Match.com, which has been around since 1994. In 2004, Match approached Rutgers anthropologist Helen Fisher, whose work on sex, love and the brain had made her a preeminent authority on human mating, about designing a site where, like at the successful but restricted eHarmony, members would not shop blindly for dates, but would be matched with each other based on personality profiles and compatibility.

Fisher developed a theory that human beings fall into four categories: negotiators, directors, explorers and builders, and that your type helps determine who you fall for. According to Fisher’s formulation, negotiators are powered by estrogen, intuitive, socially skilled, imaginative and sympathetic; testosterone-fueled directors are focused, ambitious, daring and independent; explorers are dopamine-driven risk-takers who are spontaneous, curious and adaptable; and solid builders have a lot of serotonin that makes them calm, sociable, conscientious and domestically oriented.

Fisher designed, and continues to tweak, the site’s lengthy personality questionnaire, on which customers discover what their driving chemical and personality type is by answering wacky questions about the length of their fingers, how they react to public displays of affection, and what kind of doodles they do in work meetings. (While reporting this story, I took Chemistry’s personality test, and received a stream of matching profiles. My matches did not seem to differ significantly from those with whom I was set up several years ago while reporting a story on eHarmony, except that my Chemistry matches tended to be geographically closer to New York City. But overall, the profiles I browsed were of guys I was not moved to meet in person. Then again, I am not the world’s most enthusiastic dater.)

the rest of the article is here.

Technorati Tags: love, romance, sex, men, women, dating, date, matching, mating, online, internet, new york, salon, Helen Fisher, anthropology, business, entrepeneur, matchmaking

Powered by ScribeFire.

But the aggressive ad campaign isn’t the only thing that sets Chemistry apart in the flourishing business of finding love online. The company is an offshoot of Internet meet-market Match.com, which has been around since 1994. In 2004, Match approached Rutgers anthropologist Helen Fisher, whose work on sex, love and the brain had made her a preeminent authority on human mating, about designing a site where, like at the successful but restricted eHarmony, members would not shop blindly for dates, but would be matched with each other based on personality profiles and compatibility.

Fisher developed a theory that human beings fall into four categories: negotiators, directors, explorers and builders, and that your type helps determine who you fall for. According to Fisher’s formulation, negotiators are powered by estrogen, intuitive, socially skilled, imaginative and sympathetic; testosterone-fueled directors are focused, ambitious, daring and independent; explorers are dopamine-driven risk-takers who are spontaneous, curious and adaptable; and solid builders have a lot of serotonin that makes them calm, sociable, conscientious and domestically oriented.

Fisher designed, and continues to tweak, the site’s lengthy personality questionnaire, on which customers discover what their driving chemical and personality type is by answering wacky questions about the length of their fingers, how they react to public displays of affection, and what kind of doodles they do in work meetings. (While reporting this story, I took Chemistry’s personality test, and received a stream of matching profiles. My matches did not seem to differ significantly from those with whom I was set up several years ago while reporting a story on eHarmony, except that my Chemistry matches tended to be geographically closer to New York City. But overall, the profiles I browsed were of guys I was not moved to meet in person. Then again, I am not the world’s most enthusiastic dater.)

the rest of the article is here.

Technorati Tags: love, romance, sex, men, women, dating, date, matching, mating, online, internet, new york, salon, Helen Fisher, anthropology, business, entrepeneur, matchmaking

Powered by ScribeFire.

Some women are born to hurt certain kinds of men. Certain kinds of men are born to hurt certain kinds of women. Some women are born to be hurt by certain kinds of men. Some men are born to be hurt by certain kinds of women. And it goes on.

From Wired:

Considering how much finagling and finessing people will do to make time for an online lover, it surprises me when I talk to people who dislike the idea of scheduling sex in offline relationships.

In fact, scheduling sex — not just time to be together with the understanding that sex might arise, but actually saying “we will start nookie at 9 a.m. Saturday” — is so taboo, some couples refuse to do it.

I’ve been thinking about this ever since a reader e-mailed to tell me how hot his sex life has become since he and his wife began scheduling it (“Wednesdays and Saturdays”). This letter came right on the heels of Seska telling me that she looks forward to her Tuesday night webcam shows because they guarantee focused intimacy with her husband.

“The idea that good sex is spontaneous is tied, at least in part, to the idea that good sex can’t or shouldn’t be fully described,” says sex educator Cory Silverberg. “This myth serves at least two important societal purposes. It prevents us from ever talking openly, explicitly and honestly about sex (you’ll ruin the trick if you know how it’s done!). And it ensures that the status quo is maintained. If it’s meant to be spontaneous than we don’t even need to talk about it.”

Online lovers know the importance of scheduling — especially if you’re in different time zones. You need to know when you can reasonably expect to meet up, lest one pine at the keyboard while the other is away working or socializing or just not in the mood to log on.

You schedule chat times and let each other know whether you will be home alone or otherwise sexually available; you say whether you’re both available for webcams and voice or just a quick text conversation; you arrange your schedule so your chores are done and you can come to the computer relaxed and ready.

Not something that i would think of trying, it’d probably give you something to look forward to, assuming you actually enjoy sex with whoever your partner is, but it’d probably be awkward at first.

I’ll never forget what Marty Klein said at a recent seminar: “Americans have sex when we’re tired.”

Ouch that’s kinda harsh Marty.

When I realized that the boyfriend and I were sliding into that pattern, falling into bed too exhausted to play, I started making him do me as soon as he walks in my door rather than wait until after dinner and wine. (He seemed to find this exotic. But I haven’t noticed any objections.) The problem is that sex makes you tired, so you do all the other stuff first and then you get around to having sex. However, since there’s always a million things that need doing and planning, by the time you actually get around to sex you are tired. So what they say is right…anyway, ever notice how sex in the movies starts in the car, continues in the elevator, involves mauling each other in the stairwell and taking off pants while fumbling for keys? OK, mostly in European art films, but nonetheless…maybe their art imitates life, but for us, no.

“I suspect one of the ‘hidden’ resentments about scheduling sex is that by the time a couple needs to do that, they need to schedule a lot of other things in their lives,” says research psychoanalyst Paul Joannides, author of the Guide to Getting It On. “So maybe scheduling sex becomes symbolic of just how unspontaneous our lives can become in such a short time.”

[tags]sex, love, romance, schedule, society, culture[/tags]