Tag Archives: orgasm

Why Extremists (Of All Kinds) Seek To Destroy Sex And Love

198420teaser-850x510

Whenever a tyrannical power gains influence, it’s only a matter of time before it attempts to control sex and subvert love. Whether it’s a theocracy like “The Handmaid’s Tale” or a communist dictatorship like North Korea, those in power will eventually get to it. It’s just a matter of how repressive they dare to be.

When it comes to the extremes of authoritarianism, those envisioned by George Orwell are the standards by which all are measured. Whether they’re fictional tyrannies like those in “Star Wars” or real-life autocracies like Nazi Germany, the extent of their repression is best measured by contrasting it with the one Orwell crafted in “1984.”

This isn’t the first time I’ve cited that book or Orwell’s writing, but I do so for a reason and it’s not just because it’s one of my favorite novels. The narrative Orwell envisioned took our understanding of repression and pushed it to its greatest extremes. On every level, the world of “1984” is a worst-case-scenario for anyone who values freedom.

Under the ruling party, Ingsoc, every aspect of human life is controlled, managed, or outright subverted. That includes sex, but it’s certainly not limited to it. Through institutions like the ironically-named Ministry of Love and the Junior Anti-Sex League, people aren’t just shamed or bullied into certain sexual practices. They’re tortured, brainwashed, and forced into it.

It’s a level of control that the Catholic Church, the religious right, and even conservative Muslims would find excessive. It’s also an important part of the story because so much of the events surrounding “1984” emerge from Winston’s relationship with Julia. In fact, the love they share is framed one of the biggest threats to the party.

That, in and of itself, is extremely telling of the power of sex and the love that emerges from it. Even in a world in which the repression is so complete that the party can convince people that two plus two equals five, it still has a problem dealing with sex. If Big Brother can’t manage it, then what hope does the Vatican have?

I ask that question within the context of “1984” because I’m seeing more and more issues inevitably link back to sexuality. It’s not just from religious institutions, though. They’ve made their eagerness to shape sexuality to serve their interests known for centuries. They aren’t always overt about it, but it’s not too hard to understand why they want their adherents having sex only for procreation.

For them, linking sex to making babies means all those sexual thoughts people have will result in more adherents. More adherents means more money. More money means more power and influence. It’s often cloaked in sin and morality, but this is the ultimate byproduct of their sexual morals.

However, it’s at the other end of the spectrum where a different, but powerful kind of sexual subversion is at work. The link isn’t quite as obvious as those espoused by religious institutions, but it is there in that the byproduct is the same and the underlying themes are richly reflected in “1984.”

On that end of the spectrum are those who identify as secular, but still hold extreme ideologies. This includes extreme brands of feminism, social justice ideology, and even old school communism. These are people who don’t just want to reform the current system through political and social discourse. They seek to overthrow the system and replace it with their own Utopian ideal.

Like the religious zealots they often clash with, they see the current order as oppressive. Whether it’s a religious sect facing persecution or the historical oppression against anyone who isn’t part of a historic majority, these individuals see revolution as the only way to right these wrongs. Part of that revolution involves destroying sex, albeit indirectly.

Whereas religious zealots rely on outright censorship, those on the opposite end employ a more subtle approach. They denigrate and bemoan sexual imagery, be it in video game characters or a shirt somebody happens to be wearing. They obsess over inequities and victimization, singling out egregious crimes while ignoring others that don’t fit the narrative.

Some will go so far as to claim sex as inherently oppressive. A few radical feminists have gone so far as to say that the fundamentals of sex can only ever be oppressive. In the same way some religious preachers will shame someone for looking at anyone with lust, this ideology identifies anyone who has or pursues sex as an oppressor.

That might have been absurd several decades ago, but in the current state of outrage culture where the dress Jennifer Lawrence wears to a movie premier becomes a controversy, it’s steadily creeping into the discourse. Concepts like beauty are now oppressive to those not born with beautiful bodies. Anything that may titillate or excite is seen as dangerous or damaging to the oppressed.

It’s at a point where the idea of people seeking any kind of release outside the narrative espoused by extremists is pathologized. For religious zealots, it’s sinful. For the non-religious extremists, it’s oppressive. Both see it as something that needs to be reformed or envisioned.

Chances are these individuals don’t see themselves as the authoritarians depicted in “1984.” They still see themselves as the underdogs in a “Rocky” movie, fighting to win an epic battle against an oppressive bully. Beyond being an absurd conflation of what they’re fighting for, this very approach is envisioned by Orwell and is key to empowering Ingsoc.

In the world of “1984,” the Ministry of Truth builds a similar narrative for the masses. They’re told that prior to Ingsoc taking power, the world was a terrible, oppressive place. It was only by rallying around the party and Big Brother that they were able to triumph. Moreover, it’s through the wisdom and guidance of the party that they escape this oppression.

Part of that process involves reshaping/subverting sex. In “1984,” the party isn’t just looking to control it. They seek to destroy it. The Junior Anti-Sex League even says it outright at one point.

“The sex inherent aptitude will be eradicated. Reproduction will be a one-year formality like the reclamation of a ration card. We shall get rid of the orgasm.”

Even by extreme repression standards, this seems extreme. It might even seem like something that would give zealots of all types pause. However, Orwell’s way of justifying such extremes reveal more than just a twisted ideology. He ends up exposing why sex is such a huge concern for any extreme ideology.

“When you make love you’re using up energy; and afterwards you feel happy and don’t give a damn for anything. They can’t bear you to feel like that. They want you to be bursting with energy all the time. All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simply sex gone sour. If you’re happy inside yourself, why should you get excited about Big Brother?”

Read over that quote again, but replace Big Brother with the name of any religious sect or political ideology. It has the same meaning and the same implications. In order for both the zealots and the radicals to achieve their goal, they have to destroy sex. It’s the only way they can achieve their Utopian ideal.

Religious zealots can’t shame or guilt people entirely out of wanting to enjoy sex for non-procreative purposes. They can certainly make it difficult and painful for many, even to the point of serious abuse, but it never works in the long run. The drive to just want to hump for fun is too strong.

Certain brands of radical feminism have a similar issue. They can’t stop straight men from enjoying the sight of a beautiful woman. They can’t stop anyone from wanting to enjoy something different in their sex lives that they don’t like. No matter how much they’re triggered, it doesn’t turn off that powerful, instinctual drive.

In “1984,” the party actively works towards destroying that drive through technology. This is a lot scarier now because that kind of technology is already in the works. In theory, an extremely repressive religious zealot or a very regressive feminist could turn the implants in development at Neuralink into something that removes all pleasure from sex.

From there, they could redirect that energy into serving their ideology/religion. The procreative function could still be utilized, but only to the extent that it’s necessary. That may not be the ultimate goal. It’s not even the ultimate goal of Ingsoc. It’s just necessary in the grand scheme of pursuing and securing power.

As it stands, those in the religious right and other extremist circles aren’t remotely close to gaining the influence and control exercised by Big Brother in “1984.” Logistically speaking, it’s impossible for them because subverting human nature requires an understanding of it and the scientific process for achieving that understanding rarely adheres to ideology.

It still says something about their goals when the only way to achieve them in the long run requires that they destroy sex. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Orwell built a major part of “1984” around two characters falling in love and experiencing the joys of the sex act. That proved to be one of most powerful ways for them to oppose the party.

To that extent, Orwell’s understanding of sexuality is nothing short of prophetic in terms of how revolutionaries on both ends of the political spectrum view it. In an Orwellian world, sex and love aren’t just a hindrance to a revolution. They’re an outright threat.

The fact that it took repression on the level of Big Brother to confront that threat is a testament to the power of sex and love. If Big Brother couldn’t contain it, then what hope does any religion or ideology have?

Leave a comment

Filed under gender issues, human nature, Marriage and Relationships, men's issues, outrage culture, religion, sex in society, sexuality, women's issues

The Other Orgasm Gap (Involving Men) And Why We Should Confront It

basic-secrets-male-orgasm

There are many disagreements about gender these days, but when it comes to orgasms, most reasonable people are on the same page. In general, regardless of politics or genital configuration, we’re in favor of them. We support efforts to experience more for ourselves and for our partners. In matters of sex, it’s one of the few unifying issues.

Even if most people agree that orgasms are awesome, there are still some sources of tension. I’ve already touched on the current status of the orgasm gap, as it pertains to women. That is still an unresolved issue and the current status of gender relations can only improve if that gap is reduced or eliminated.

However, there is another orgasm gap that is rarely touched on, but inescapably linked to the current pleasure parity. This one pertains to men and, unlike the female orgasm gap, is shackled by hard biological limits. Any man, myself included, knows those limits all too well.

It’s no secret, but it might as well be one because it’s rarely talked about. Without getting too graphic, I’ll just say that the female orgasm is a symphony whereas the male orgasm is like a kazoo. It’s a one-note instrument that is simple, basic, and blunt. You can still make music with it, but the range is limited.

That’s because men have something called a refractory period. It’s basically the cool-down period that men experience after orgasm. From a biological standpoint, it’s the part of sex where the brain and genitals tell one another that the job is done and it’s time to rest. That process involves releasing all sorts of hormones and chemicals that are responsible for men getting sleepy after sex.

It’s the reason why men have a difficult time getting aroused again after sex, both physically and mentally. Once a man reaches that peak, it takes a while to get to that level again. It can take as little as 15 minutes to almost an entire day. During that time, though, a man’s ability and desire are significantly hindered.

This inescapable process is also the source of many jokes about premature ejaculation and men who can’t last long in bed. I don’t doubt it’s a factor in the orgasm gap. Whereas it takes a man only two to three minutes to achieve orgasm, it takes a woman an average of 12 minutes to do the same. That is not a trivial gap.

Conversely, women aren’t hindered by a refractory period. Even though it takes women longer to climax, they’re capable of having more orgasms in rapid succession. To give you an idea of just how many more women are capable of, the record for most female orgasms in an hour is 134 whereas the most a man has ever had is 16. Again, that is not a trivial gap.

While men don’t have to look far for tips and tricks that allow men to have multiple orgasms, many of these so-called techniques are just gimmicks. They’re methods for improving stamina and control, which is a great thing to have with any partner. However, it doesn’t change the fundamental biology of refractory periods.

That’s not to say this particular gap is impossible to close. That’s also not to say that there aren’t documented cases of men achieving multiple orgasms. They do exist, but there’s not a lot of research on the topic, especially compared to the amount of research on the female orgasm.

If we’re to close the orgasm gap for everybody, though, this is something that’s worth studying. I would even argue that we can’t solve the orgasm gap with women without confronting this lesser-known gap with men. In essence, that refractory period is the greatest hindrance to true orgasm parity.

Just talking about it only goes so far, though. Unlike the female orgasm gap, the refractory period is rooted in biology rather than psychology. From an evolution standpoint, it makes sense. By achieving orgasm quickly, a man can spend less time impregnating a woman and more time surviving. It was a necessary trait for managing the survival/reproduction dynamic of the human species.

Like many other traits from our pre-modern ancestors, though, these traits are less necessary in the modern era. In fact, they can be a liability. In a world of low infant and maternal mortality, we have more incentive to seek quality over quantity in our lovers. The refractory period, much like our body’s tendency to get fat, is a real hindrance to that effort.

Addressing it is probably not going to be as simple as telling men to do kegel exercises. Men being able to achieve multiple orgasms may require an effort similar to that of developing the female birth control pill. In the same way modern medicine has given women control over their fertility, it may end up doing the same for male orgasms.

How modern medicine would go about that is well-beyond my expertise. However, we already do have some clues as to what goes into reducing the refractory period. Studies has shown that a chemical called prolactin may play a major role.

Specifically, when a man climaxes and goes through a refractory period, levels of prolactin in the body spike. In rare cases of multi-orgasmic men, though, it doesn’t rise in conjunction with an orgasm. Now, that could be only be part of a much more complex process, as is often the case in medicine, but it’s a start.

In the same way some people are already hacking their biology for reasons relating to health and beauty, it may be possible to tweak certain bodily processes to enable men to have the same orgasmic potential as women. It doesn’t even have to extend to modifying genetics. It can just involve tweaking chemical and hormonal processes, something we’ve been doing in medicine for years.

Unfortunately, research on this phenomenon is scant at best. However, given how much money pharmaceutical companies have made treating sexual dysfunction, I believe the incentives are there. It may take a long time, but given the progress medicine has made on male contraception lately, I think the infrastructure is in place and so is the market.

It’s hard to predict what form modern medicine will take in treating any condition, be it the limits of the male orgasm or the current orgasm gap with women. However, I am confident in saying that any advance that puts everyone on the same level of orgasmic potential will be a game-changer of the sexiest kind.

Leave a comment

Filed under gender issues, Marriage and Relationships, sex in media, sex in society, sexuality

The Unspoken Gender Disparity (Of Sex Toys)

I talk a lot about our current attitudes towards sex and the various problems it causes in our society. There are a lot of ways those attitudes manifest and my sexy novels can only do so much to expose them. Many of those attitudes have a clear and frustrating gender bias, which always inspires heated debates.

To reveal the breadth of this disparity, here’s a quick little test you can take. It doesn’t matter if you’re a man, woman, or something in between. It’ll reveal a little something about yourself and the way this disparity affects us. It goes like this.

A young woman walks up to you. She seems healthy, happy, and sane. She then tells you, “I own a vibrating dildo that has the look, feel, and texture of a real penis and I use it regularly to pleasure myself.” How do you react?

Shortly after, a young man walks up to you. He seems just as healthy, happy, and sane. He then tells you, “I own a sex doll that has the look, feel, and texture of a real vagina and I use it regularly to pleasure myself.” How do you react?

If we’re being honest with ourselves, and I know that’s not always easy or possible, we’ll react very differently to the man than we do the woman. Fundamentally, they’re both saying the same thing. They use a sex toy as a means of satisfying their basic desires when they don’t have a partner.

However, we don’t see either person the same way. The idea of a woman using a sex toy conjures all sorts of lurid mental images about a woman alone, surrounded by candles, touching herself in all sorts of wonderfully erotic ways. That imagery is the basis of a good chunk of the porn out there.

The idea of a man doing something similar conjures a very different kind of imagery. We don’t see that scene as erotic. Most likely, we’ll picture an ugly, lonely man in his basement, humping an imitation of a vagina because he’s too pathetic to experience the real thing.

Unlike the woman, there’s nothing sexy about it. At most, it just reminds us of that iconic scene in “American Pie” that had Jason Biggs going to down on a pie. On top of making everyone inherently suspicious of warm pies, it acts as a testament to how hilarious/pathetic men can be in their pursuit of sex.

It’s a double standard in the highest order, a concept I’ve explored before. It’s just one of those double standards that gets lost in arguments about a woman’s body image or the basics of sexual harassment. You could even argue that it’s an extension of the war on horny men. It’s hard enough being that horny. Any effort to satiate it is going to be met with added scrutiny.

In the middle of this huge double standard is a fundamental engineering challenge that mankind has yet to solve. Specifically, it involves sex toys. While these wondrous tools of pleasure have made incredible advances in recent years, there are still certain deficiencies that further the disparity for men and women.

Go into any place that sells sex toys and chances are you’ll be bombarded by every phallic-shaped accessory that it’s possible to imagine. If you want something that looks like an erect penis, you have an abundance of riches.

You can choose a penis made of glass, plastics, or a hyper-realistic synthetic. You can get one that vibrates. You can get one that has a clitoral stimulator. They even come in every imaginable size, shape, and color. Given the simple, basic structure of an erect penis, it’s fairly easy to replicate with our amazing tool-making skills. That’s a major reason why dildos are among the oldest, most successful sex toys of all time.

Contrast this with the options for toys resembling female genitalia. Sure, you’ll see the occasional blow-up doll, hand-held pussy, or molding based on a famous porn star, but chances are it won’t look or feel very real. These things are basically rubber and plastic. They’re incapable of mimicking the intricacies of actual vaginas.

While this is a testament to wonder that is a real vagina, it leaves the straight men who seek them at a frustrating disadvantage. It’s bad enough their natural, fully-functioning penises can never compete with a dildo that is always hard and vibrates to stimulate the deepest recesses of female anatomy. They don’t have something similar that delivers an equally intense experience.

At the moment, the closest approximation men can enjoying a real, artificial vagina comes from extremely advanced sex dolls like those made by Real Dolls. However, those super-real synthetics are extremely expensive, especially when compared to the average dildo.

It’s possible to get a quality vibrator these days for around fifty bucks and no shame. Even the cheapest accessory offered by Real Dolls will run you over four hundred dollars. On top of that, a man who admits he owns one is going to be subject to a fair amount of scrutiny and ridicule. Bud Bundy from “Married With Children” is proof enough of that.

That kind of disparity is bound to cause problems and not just through egregious double standards. As technology advances and sex dolls become more advanced, as well as full-fledged sex robots, the realism gap will narrow. It may have taken way too long, but there will come a day where a sex toy will give a man a sexual experience that’s indistinguishable from that of a woman.

However, this has already inspired controversy. There are some out there who would decry the use of such realistic sex toys because it literally objectifies the female body into something men can purchase. That’s something the radical, sex-negative crowd has been bemoaning for decades.

Ironically, these same individuals are relatively silent when it comes to the continued sale of realistic dildos. I imagine if someone came along and argued that if sex toys that mimic the female body should be banned, then all those penis-shaped accessories should be banned too in the name of gender equality. I imagine that would not go over well, even among radical feminists.

For now, though, the disparity remains. A woman has access to every kind of penis-shaped satisfaction she could hope for at a price most anyone can afford. An average man with an average income is out of luck and any effort he makes to satisfy his desires will be subject to added scrutiny. If he tries too hard, he’ll be labored a creep.

It’s not fair. It’s a complete affront to anyone who claims to be in favor of gender equality. If we’re going to endure the current disparity between male and female sex toys, we should at least offer a measure of understanding and sympathy.

Both genders have desires. Both genders want to share those desires. Let’s work together in that effort. I intend to do my part with my sexy novels. Those busy/horny scientists in sex toy labs like Real Dolls will surely do theirs. Collectively, in the name of all things sexy, we must be willing to do ours.

5 Comments

Filed under gender issues, sex robots, Sexy Future

The Evolutionary Origin of the Female Orgasm

Last week, one particular story flew under the radar. I suspect a lot of stories will do that in the midst of a Presidential Election/Political Sideshow. However, being an aspiring writer who focuses on erotica, sex, and intimate romance, these sorts of stories do catch my attention. They also give me something new to think about as I’m developing my stories.

Believe it or not, there’s an ongoing struggle in the scientific world and it has to do with the female orgasm. Yes, the same science that gives is iPhones, rockets, and crazy glue still can’t decipher the female orgasm. Why is it a mystery? Well, evolutionary speaking, we don’t know why the hell it’s there.

Granted, we’re grateful for the joys of orgasms, male and female alike. I’ve already written about the numerous health benefits that come with orgasms so it’s not like nature isn’t aware of them to some degree. Nature tends to make use of something, regardless of how it came to be. That’s the thing though. From an evolutionary standpoint, we really don’t know how the female orgasm came to be or what purpose it serves.

Human physiology is pretty damn remarkable compared to other primates. In most primates, what science defines as an orgasm plays a part in reproductive success. A male’s orgasm is accompanied by the release of sperm. A female orgasm is accompanied by ovulation. It makes perfect evolutionary sense. A species that experiences orgasm in accord with reproductive behaviors is definitely going to have the right incentive to propagate.

Humans are different though. While the male orgasm is still associated with the release of sexual fluids vital for reproduction, the female orgasm offers no such benefit. A woman need not have an orgasm in order to reproduce. Ideally, it’s just a happy byproduct. Since nature favors survival over meaningless fun though, it still doesn’t explain why the female orgasm is still there. Now, a study published in July 2016 in the Journal of Experimental Zoology offers a potential explanation. Here’s the abstract:

The evolutionary explanation of female orgasm has been difficult to come by. The orgasm in women does not obviously contribute to the reproductive success, and surprisingly unreliably accompanies heterosexual intercourse. Two types of explanations have been proposed: one insisting on extant adaptive roles in reproduction, another explaining female orgasm as a byproduct of selection on male orgasm, which is crucial for sperm transfer. We emphasize that these explanations tend to focus on evidence from human biology and thus address the modification of a trait rather than its evolutionary origin. To trace the trait through evolution requires identifying its homologue in other species, which may have limited similarity with the human trait. Human female orgasm is associated with an endocrine surge similar to the copulatory surges in species with induced ovulation. We suggest that the homolog of human orgasm is the reflex that, ancestrally, induced ovulation. This reflex became superfluous with the evolution of spontaneous ovulation, potentially freeing female orgasm for other roles. This is supported by phylogenetic evidence showing that induced ovulation is ancestral, while spontaneous ovulation is derived within eutherians. In addition, the comparative anatomy of female reproductive tract shows that evolution of spontaneous ovulation is correlated with increasing distance of clitoris from the copulatory canal. In summary, we suggest that the female orgasm-like trait may have been adaptive, however for a different role, namely for inducing ovulation. With the evolution of spontaneous ovulation, orgasm was freed to gain secondary roles, which may explain its maintenance, but not its origin.

There are some telling words within the science jargon, namely the concept of the female orgasm being unreliable during sexual intercourse. I doubt women need science to prove this to them. However, that unreliability may be a big reason why orgasms developed into other uses. The study calls it “adaptive,” something that tends to happen a lot in evolution. If a trait ceases to have one use, it can develop another. That’s how land mammals develop into whales. This kind of adaptation, however, is much sexier.

It’s that adaptation part that helped make human beings the extremely social, uniquely passionate creatures that they are. If orgasms no longer have solely reproductive roles, then it can develop other roles within our species. Those roles include romantic roles. An orgasm doesn’t have to involve reproduction. It can involve love, the bonding of two individuals to create a more cohesive society. It’s that cohesion that helps make humans the dominant species of the planet. A bear may be physically stronger than any human, but humans can coordinate better to take them down. Orgasms are just part of that process.

Now it’s not like we need more reasons to celebrate orgasms, male and female alike, but it is nice to know that they did play a role in the success of our species. Success, on any level, is worth celebrating and orgasms give us plenty of ways to celebrate.

3 Comments

Filed under Jack Fisher's Insights, Uncategorized