Tag Archives: sexuality

Slip-Slidin’ Away…

Leave a reply

Ladies and gentlemen…recognizing the legitimacy of homosexual and bisexual relations, along with recognition of same-gender marriage, will not lead to some collapse of civilization. Trust me. Given the fact that some of you may think homosexuality has never been a publicly endorsed concept, maybe you need to do a little more research into some ancient Greek folks who had some feared and effective military forces in which getting it on with your shield-mate was perfectly fine.

So, why is the whole same-sex sex thing on my mind again?

Recently, I started following a Twitter account called RP_Newsletter. It’s a great account that spends most of its time showing how crazy, deluded, homophobic and racist Ron Paul is by printing excerpts from the various newsletters he now claims he had nothing to do with (despite having publicly associated himself with them in the past). The account gets a bit repetitive at times, but it’s nice to be made aware of just how out-of-touch and dangerous many of Ron Paul’s views have been (and chances are he still holds most or all of those views). For example, Ron Paul seems to have a notion that the rise of HIV/AIDS is directly linked to rising acceptance of homosexuality in society, which pretty much proves he must have been a shitty physician, since any doctor worth his salt knows that sexually transmitted diseases don’t give a shit as they evolve into nastier forms whether you’re banging a fellow dude on the sly or openly.

Also, we have Rick Santorum in the race to be the GOP presidential candidate against Ron Paul and others, and I love how that jackass seems to think that legal recognition and acceptance of same-sex stuff will lead to legal incest, bestiality, pedophilia and adultery.

That last one really tickles my funny bone, given the fact it’s not really illegal to commit adultery NOW, and it’s far more widely practiced than same-sex relations. In fact, it’s one of the most popular sexual activities among Democratic AND Republican politicians alike.

But what this all has me in mind of is that strange notion that if we acknowledge that some people are gay (or bi) and that they have a right to make that choice as grown folks and be proud of who they are, that there is some slippery slope awaiting that we will all fall down, with civilization as we know it dragged down in tatters behind us.

Such a notion shows that believers of such things don’t have much in the way of critical-thinking skills. Of course, it’s also become clear to me that given how insanely obstinate, cruel, obstructionist, classist, evil, greedy and mean-tempered so many conservatives are these days, most who support them obviously don’t know what critical thinking IS (especially if they are working-class or poor folks supporting the GOP).

First off, there is no slippery slope connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. Despite all the high-profile stories of priests and altar boys, the fact is that pedophilia isn’t about same-sex relations. It’s about sick fucks who abuse children, and a lot more heterosexual sick fucks out there do it than homosexual sick fucks. You see, homosexuality is way different; it’s overwhelmingly about people making decisions to have sex with other age-appropriate folks who happen to have the same sexual apparatus. Point is that homosexual relations are overwhelmingly consensual. Pedophilia is overwhelmingly abusive and non-consensual. There is no comparison.

Same thing with bestiality. Animals can’t give consent. Aside from the fact that equating sexual relations between two people with sex between a person and an animal is just plain damn rude, ignorant and insensitive, there just isn’t a comparison. Sexual relations with an animal is forcing YOUR desires onto the animal, which inherently has less power than you do with your bigger brain and opposable thumbs. Sure, there are a few dogs here or some other animal now and again that might take the initiative to mount a human, but generally speaking, they don’t want to go there. But again, recognition of same-sex relations, which are consensual, does not compare to bestiality at all.

And incest…well…OK, there is a potential progression there. I admit it. At least if we’re taking consensual incest. If you’re talking about Uncle Joey making inappropriate moves in his young niece or nephew, that’s pedophilia primarily, and the incest portion is just secondary crap that make the whole situation sicker. But there are folks of consensual age who are attracted to close relatives and don’t see anything wrong with having sex with them. For me, this is a taboo area. I think it’s an inappropriate line to cross. But at the same time, who the hell am I to tell, for example, two adult siblings whom they can or cannot have sex with? Why should there be any issues of legality involved here? Why should we be able to criminalize the act of ANY two adults in full control of their faculties that involves sex? Logically, there is no reason, because it’s between those two people and no one else.

Sure, I see value in criminalizing adult choices that put others at risk or cause them undesired harm (such as driving under the influence or choosing to rape someone), but the only risk of incest aside from the “ick factor” most of us feel about it is a slightly increased risk of genetic problems in any children. But Lord knows, plenty of people who aren’t blood relations can legally have kids when they have high risks of passing along bad stuff to their kids. In the end, though, the vast majority of people don’t want to have sex with their close relatives, except maybe first cousins in some situations, which is actually legal in a lot of places. But folks generally don’t want to have sex with siblings, parents or grown children. They just don’t. It’s such a small group compared to homosexual folks, which are already a subset of the sexually active adult population, that I don’t see a big rush for people to cry out, “We want incestual marriage legalized.” Sure, it COULD happen, but I just don’t see a big fanbase for that rising up in protest.

My dear conservatives, your slippery-slope theory is slick, but ultimately sloppy.

Why don’t you just drop the same-sex slippery slope theory and move on. You were wrong (and often still are) in terms of your racial views, and the same goes for your same-sex paranoia. Many of you crowing the loudest probably have some same-sex baggage in your closet anyway, so just shut up already.

The Bluer Side of Deacon Blue

2 Replies

So, as I’ve mentioned at various times in this blog, I write erotica. Sadly, I don’t get paid to do it, but it’s one of my main outlets for fiction on the web, at a couple of other blogs I have under a completely different name that is unattached to my real name or to my Deacon Blue identity.

Frankly, I spend way more time writing the erotica than I do writing superhero fiction at my Tales of the Whethermen blog, and I feel somewhat bad about that for fans of the Whethermen stuff, since it delays them getting new material. On the other hand, at this point in time, I’m lucky to get 20 visitors in a single day at the Whethermen blog when I post a new story, whereas I routinely get 100 to 200 a day at my primary erotica blog.

So, I feel I need to cater to my more devoted fan base. I’m sure you understand.

Not to mention the fact it’s fun to write stories that focus on kinks and fetishes I find interesting. You might also understand that.

Problem is that in mentioning that I write “blue fiction,” I’ve piqued the curiosity of some visitors here at this blog, and only a very precious few were people I felt I could trust with knowledge of where to find my other blogs.

This made me feel a little guilty for those interested souls here who like reading some good erotica. Not that I’m saying mine is good, but several other people have, so either they’re right or they have bad taste. In any case, it’s good for my ego.

So, I’ve decided to make an interesting plunge at my Whethermen blog. From time to time, I will write an erotic tale related to existing or new transhuman characters in my Whethermen universe. These stories won’t be part of the regular blog postings but rather attached to this page at the Tales of the Whethermen blog. This will make it a slightly less in-your-face kind of things so that those who don’t want to read the erotica don’t have to, and random visitors are less likely to trip over the stories by accident as their entry point in the blog.

In any case, people may or may not be interested, but if you’ve wanted to see if I’m any good at erotica, here’s your chance. The first story, Out of Uniform, went up tonight.

Abstinence Only Education: The Ultimate Act of Futility

1 Reply

Every time a conservative person, particularly of the religious persuasion, goes off on how important “abstinence-only” education is, an angel loses his dick.

Hey, the Bible says angels had sex with women at times, so they must have some junk under those white robes. And in this season when the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” tends to get a lot of play (every time a bell rings, a new angel gets its wings)…well, it seems an apropos image.

But back to the topic. Why the hell does this notion of teaching abstinence get so much play? Have all the members of the GOP conveniently forgotten that almost all of them had sex in their teens…before being married? Did they forget that many of their parents had them in their teens and got married primarily because those future Republican politicians and pundits were growing in a young womb?

I’m not saying we should be teaching the Kama Sutra in classrooms and letting teens watch pornos in school, but damn it, they need education about the risks of sex and how to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. Even loudmouthed fucking Sarah Palin’s teen kid got pregnant while unmarried in the midst of Mrs.-Holier-Than-Thou-Rewrites-History-and-Can-See-Russia-from-Her-Backyard’s efforts to try to drum up a presidential campaign.

Considering how much sexually transmitted disease is out there, and how many STDs are becoming resistant (or already long since have done so) to most available treatments, it is downright criminal to be trying to keep teens from getting access both to knowledge and condoms.

Because you know what? Teens are going to have sex. If they can get a person who’s willing to have sex, they will have sex. I know that I would have, if only the nerdy girls weren’t turning me down for dates just as much as the more popular ones were.

Teens have been having sex before marriage forever. For. Fucking. Ever.

I want conservatives to point me to this magic period in history when teens didn’t have sex before tying the knot. And don’t go back to the 1940s and 1950s and tell me how pure kids were then and how they obeyed their parents and were stalwart bastions of virtue. They got married in high school or right after often because the girl was knocked up.

So, conservatives, let me give you a math equation: Rampaging hormones + penis + vagina = teen sex.

No amount of pushing abstinence-only education will change that. Shepherds back in biblical times were telling their kids to keep in in their robes, too, and they didn’t listen then. They didn’t keep them in their slacks and poodle skirts in the 1950s, either.

So, shut the fuck up already, accept reality and let’s shoot for healthier and safer activities. Education and condoms aren’t going to increase teen sex.

But they might decrease the amount of disease and early pregnancies out there.

You Are Here…Just Don’t Tell Anyone

Leave a reply

sex-map-partialSo, as I mentioned a couple weeks back, I’m participating in this Blog Off “post every day in November” challenge (click on the link above and you can see some of the others who are doing the same…I think most or all are Christian bloggers). This week, I’m supposed to post at least once on a topic related to sexuality.

Well, twist my arm, huh? You know how shy I am about talking sex.

I’ve had a couple interesting somethings hanging around in my image file and thought I’d share them and share a couple thoughts about them (probably won’t be much religion, if any, in today’s post; just letting you know). Both of them are maps of human sexuality. Honest to God maps, people. I’m not talking about a chart or table that “maps” sexual trends. They are an attempt to graphically represent both the wide range of sexuality among humans, as well as to categorize various interests, kinks and fetishes into groups of similarity, with the imagery of a map.

It’s an interesting exercise. And they are pretty educational if you’re in the mind to learn about what kinks exist that you never imagined could exist. The maps are pretty big (particularly the second one), so I’ve only got thumbnails below. Feel free to either click on the image itself or on the words to the right of it to pull each one up into its own window.

fetishmapbig  Fetish Map as Public Transportation

 sexmap  Your Sexuality Portrayed as a Nation

First, I will say that there are a few stops along the route I’d like to get off on…I mean get off at…er, ah, never mind (in the first map) and a few countries I’d really like to spend a few weeks in (in the second map). I won’t tell you which ones, but I will assure you that none of them involve anything particularly nauseating or horrifying.

Second, while I find the maps interesting and even edifying, I have to say that they also point to the prejudices individuals have about certain sex acts and sexually oriented behaviors.

The “transit map” style one focuses on fetishes/kinks alone, and not really in the context of more vanilla-style sex (at least not any plain stuff in there that I see). It keeps it more focused, but it would have been interesting to know where the more banal, perhaps “suburban”, train stops are.

Now for the huge-ass, nation/island oriented map, which tries to encompass just about everything one could imagine in human sexuality, and not simply fetishes. In fact, it even addresses some psychology in there, with things like the Strait of Self Loathing. You will note that there are some extreme things located beyond a mountain range in the north called the Impassable Reaches. Of course, there are some other pretty nasty and taboo things farther south, too, some of them sequestered on islands and others mixed in with more normal stuff.

So, I get that the idea is to categorize more than to judge. That is, just because something is south of the Impassable Reaches, that doesn’t mean you should do it. But still, I am struck by the fact that spitting is in the realm beyond the Impassable Reaches.

Spitting.

Are we really that uptight?

Look, I guess the idea is that it is being grouped near other things that involve bodily emissions. But I don’t see semen or womanly fluids up there. Those are all in other areas down below (pun may or may not be intended). And how felching (not something I would engage in myself, I should note) ends up in the Impassable Regions while creampies and rimming do not (and they shouldn’t be moved there, either, mind you), I just don’t understand.

But back to the saliva. I mean, really, folks. I get that in public, we would consider spitting on someone rude, but if you want to play with spit in any way, shape or form in the bedroom, that’s hardly “Impassable Reaches” territory. C’mon, just what do you think you’re swapping when you French kiss, anyway?

And frankly, I think golden showers (again, not my thing, let me be clear) are no worse than some of the extreme stuff farther south. At worst, I figure it should be just on the other side of the Impassable Reaches, across from the nastier and unhealthier stuff.

But I don’t draw the maps. I just travel to the places I can afford to get to and feel safe visiting.

Sex as a weapon

3 Replies

I wonder how many couples out there are engaging in a kind of sexual assault on a regular basis and don’t even realize it? I don’t mean that they’re physically forcing the other spouse to have sex and possibly using (or threatening to use) violence as part of that—though I know there are a few too many folks, most of them men, who do that and wouldn’t think of it as abuse as long as they’re married to the victim. What I’m talking about is more subtle, but still insidious. Less violent, but still damaging.

To get a sense of where I’m going with this, let’s run with the term sexual assault and take out the word sexual for a moment. Assault can be verbal or physical, and can be illegal either way. Is calling someone a racial or sexual epithet assault? Sure. Is it as bad as threatening their life or physical health? No, but that still doesn’t make it right. Is shoving someone who really hasn’t done anything serious to you assault? Yes, and the fact that you didn’t draw blood or break a nose or kill a person doing it doesn’t make it morally defensible.

So, sexual assault—and the more intimate, serial and individual-focused version known as sexual abuse—don’t have to be something dramatic like throwing a person down to the ground and pinning them so that you can invade their bodies. But before I go on, let me quote a couple pieces of scripture that I’ve mentioned before in my various posts about sexual relations between couples.

Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time… First Corinthians chapter 7, verses 3-5

So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church. Ephesians chapter 5, verses 28 and 29

We must remember that as in so many things with God, extremism at either end of the spectrum really pisses Him off.

We cannot be demanding of our partner all the sex we want whenever we want at whatever cost. At the same time, we cannot be withholding sex for no good reason. Sex is, primarily, not an activity for making babies but for building intimacy between couples. That is why it feels so damn good when you do it right and sometimes even when you aren’t performing so well. Sex is something that is supposed to be a constant in marriage (no, not every day kind of constant—unless of course that’s what you both want and you’re in good enough shape for it). Even if you’re the kind of couple who wants as many kids as God will give you and you shun birth control, the woman is still going to have a nine-month period every year or so during which the sex is just for keeping you as emotionally connected as you can be. And sex isn’t supposed to just go away when you get too old to have kids anymore.

So, to turn sex into a weapon in a relationship is a terribly screwed up thing to do. Yet many couples, either both members of the couple or just one of them, often do use sex as a weapon against the other, and think nothing of it. They don’t appreciate the fact that they are assualting and abusing the person that they supposedly love so much.

To harangue your husband or wife into having sex by saying, “You’d do it if you really loved me” or “If I can’t get what I want here, I’ll find someone who will give it to me” or anything like that is a form of sexual assault. It’s an emotional attack. It’s guilting someone into doing something they don’t feel like doing right now. It’s wrong.

Or consider the spouse who says, “You won’t get anything until you do this or that.” Withholding sex for some petty reason or personal gain or selfish desire in many cases. That, again, is using sex against your partner; using it as a weapon.

How about the spouse who says, “Honey, there’s something I’ve always wanted to try, and I was wondering…” or “I’ve never wanted to tell you that such-and-such turns me on because I didn’t want you to think I was weird” and, instead of getting a supportive ear and at least a consideration of validating the surprise desire—the other spouse goes in for the kill. Instead of being open and loving, the spouse tell his or her partner “You’re sick” or “I’ll never do that” or “I don’t think I can ever be with you again after hearing that” or laughs the partner to scorn. I mean, considering the wide array of kinks and fetishes out there, only a very, very few rank as so heinous that a person needs professional help. And even then, the spouse should be willing to urge the spouse toward help with love and a desire to curb those feeling and not start out of the gates with revulsion and rejection.

That isn’t to say that a spouse doesn’t have the right to “have a headache” sometimes. Typically, “no” means no, and that includes the marriage bed. Being married doesn’t let you off the hook for respecting the other person’s body and emotions. So, when our spouses say, “Not tonight,” we need to respect that, as long as it doesn’t become an unhealthy habit—and even if it becomes an unhealthy habit, we don’t get to just take what we want. We cannot expect that our spouse is always an open vessel or ready tool for our pleasure. And if there is a habit of constantly withholding or constantly demanding, perhaps it’s time to assess whether the two of you really should be together.

Guns, swords, closed fists, knives, clubs and the like are obvious weapons. But a beautiful little pedestal-top statue or tchachke-esque snowglobe on the shelf can be injurious or even deadly too, swung with enough force toward a vulnerable part of the body.

Get the picture? Rape is obvious sexual assault. But demanding or withholding sex in “nonviolent” ways can be dangerous too, when done at the wrong time or for the wrong reasons or done so often that you psychologically injure or emotionally kill your other half in the relationship.

It’s kind of like that “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people” thing. Sometimes, our bodies can be the loaded weapon in a relationship. Use them right, please.