Leave a comment

BETROTHAL W/ BOOTY? A discussion of Sex and Marriage

Sex and marriage has a bad reputation.  Heated intensity describes the sexual beginnings of most relationships. However, the complexities of life, work and kids causes things to cool.  For far too many people the latter becomes the norm and the cooling can become downright icy.  This article discusses redefining our thoughts about sexual happiness, how to preserve that carnal intensity and why we should give sex and marriage the break it deserves.

Contrary to conventional wisdom married couples have more sex per month than their single counterparts – (Kinsey report 2010). 3 out of 5 singles had no sex in the previous year vs. 1 in 5 marrieds.  During ages 29-59 Married individuals were 5 times more likely to have sex 2 to 3 times a week.  (25%) – married (5%)- single

Some studies have shown a correlation between familiarity and sexual satisfaction; that long term couples get better at sex and get more pleasure out of it. A Vanderbilt researcher Laura Carpenter explains “while people get older and busier, they also get more skillful in and out of the bed room.”

Carpenter goes on to say that we actually know very little about today’s contemporary marriages.  He says, “There is a need for more studies about the intricacies of who initiates and who does what to whom and for how long.”

John Gottman, Head of couple’s research at the Gottman Institute in Seattle says that involved men get laid more.  “Men who do more housework have more sex than men who don’t.”   According to Gottman, “chore- free” men are seen as less sexy by women he has interviewed than men who pitch in around the house.  However, a study at the University of Washington by Julie Brines found that more masculine chores like paying bills and yard work got higher sex frequencies than did more feminine chores like washing dishes and cooking.

Sociologist Paula England found that monetary compensation had little to do with frequency of sex.  She says that even in marriages where women make more than men, as long as the relationship in general seemed equitable it did not affect the sex.   More important to sexual connection in marriage is that the wife feels respected and understood.


 There is a definite need to redefine how we view intimacy early on in relationships.  We are programmed to believe that sex is defined by penetration and orgasm, (P and O).  Therefore, early in relationships when things are hot there is a lot of (P and O).  In time if this diminishes, many  couples see a problem. There are ways to explore being sexually intimate that don’t prescribe to this narrative.  It’s important to spend time early, when things are “hot”, not ONLY having penetration intercourse.  Sexual massage can be a good way to add to your intimacy, providing options that work to get you through the slow times.  Non- sexual touching is also very important.

James Conan the director of The Virginia Affective Neuroscience laboratory has done research on how the brain reacts to threats.  It turns out that hand-holding has a calming effect on the brains reaction to perceived threats and fear. The prefrontal cortex is the part of the brain that causes feeling of calmness and manages fear/stress. When they tested fear of rejection, (including sexual rejection) the same reaction was recorded in the brain. Hand-holding had a calming effect on test subjects and was shown to attenuate the fear/stress quotient. The subjects that held the hand of someone who had emotional familiarity reported having the highest levels of calmness and feelings of safety.   Point to married wife—hold hands with your husband especially when turning him down for sex!!   This small gesture could preserve your sex life down the road.    

According to Gottman, navigation of the Infamous “No” is crucial to sexual happiness in marriage.  All couples have to deal with being turned down or having to communicate not being in the mood.  This can be a watershed moment in marriages and it relies more on the person asking for sex.  According to Gottman, it’s not the, “No” that ends sex in marriages it’s the cost imposed by the other person.  If the “pursuing” person shows annoyance it is a form of punishment.  Saying something like “Fine” has a punitive tone and implies that, “I am fine without you.”   That negative communication can lead to less sex in the future.  Instead of saying “Fine” a better response is,’ I understand you are too tired to have sex. I don’t want have sex with someone who is not on the mood.  Let’s do it when you are feeling more into it. What would you like to do?”  Gottman says – “The best outcomes for your sex life come when you reward a ‘No’ and treat it positively.” 

During sexual negotiation in marriage, having a zero – sum philosophy is detrimental. An all or nothing correlation to sex can be toxic.  Interestingly enough, studies have shown men who are better communicators when it comes to being turned down not only have healthier relationships but live longer, healthier lives.

With my private clients, they have reported better sex  with these easy tricks:

  1. Change the routine– Newness is sexy/ routine is boring. Plan something exciting and out of the ordinary
  2. Admit wrong doings and show change- Mostly, the bedroom is a microcosm of the relationship
  3. Try performance enhancers- Gals: Even if doesn’t work you’re having fun down there and you never know what can happen. Guys:  Even if you don’t have ED a huge erection can be a get out of jail free card. If you do have ED ,struggling to get hard is a turnoff for her.
  4. Change how we view sex: don’t get hung up on penetration and fireworks.  A snuggle a day keeps the lawyers away.

Changing the paradigms of what sexual happiness means is key to a happy marriage.  We are socialized to believe that eroticism has to fall into certain guidelines – (penetration, orgasm and what we see in the media and porn)   But, the biggest sexual organ in our bodies is the one between our ears- our brain.  By redefining how we think about intimacy, modern marriages can withstand the ebbs and flows of sexual frequency.

Leave a comment

“Hot Girls Wanted” – New Documentary on Porn

Actress Rashida Jones is best known for her work in “The Office” and “Parks and Recreation.” But her latest project, a documentary called “Hot Girls Wanted,” explores the amateur porn industry, which she says rakes in gobs of cash by exploiting the gullibility of young women who thirst for fame and fortune.

RJ“So much stands in the way of them and that dream,” she tells Yahoo Global News Anchor Katie Couric. “And the things that stand in the way are not being fully explained to them. “Their naiveté is really important as an engine for the porn industry, or at least this part of the porn industry. That’s the problem.”

The film, which Jones produced, premiered at this year’s Sundance Festival. It takes its title from ads that commonly appear on Craigslist seeking “hot girls” for amateur porn, a genre whose name gives the impression that the films are not professionally produced.

“The truth is, it’s cast, it’s lit, it’s scripted; and most of the young girls who go into amateur porn are very young, which makes it seem like they might just be the girl next door,” Jones says.

Jones says she is not anti-porn but is concerned for the well-being of young women who think having sex on camera for money might be their quick ticket to fame and success — to a glamorous life.

Online pornography is a multibillion-dollar industry with a massive reach.

Jones says that pornography used to be more taboo but has seeped into mainstream culture to a troubling degree, where the immediate sexualization of young women in popular culture is the norm.

She says she is thankful to have grown up in an environment where she was free to be sort of a dorky teenager and make mistakes that would not follow her for the rest of her life.

“Ultimately, we have a cultural problem where we put a huge currency on sexualizing young girls,” she says. “It’s been a problem for a while, but I feel like it’s reached a fever pitch.”

Careers in amateur porn are usually short-lived. Relatively new starlets are routinely replaced by newer, younger women to fuel the girl-next-door fantasy.

“The truth is [that in] any pursuit of fame and success and fortune, very few people get to realize that,” she says. “But along the way, unfortunately, I think the costs of this pursuit are higher.”

Jones says that Internet porn is so pervasive because humans are sexual beings and there is little regulation of the Web or porn — so we are left with a simple supply/demand situation.

“People want it. People can get it. We live in a capitalistic democratic society, so we get what we want, basically,” she says. “It’s kind of here to stay, so it’s not really about whether you are anti- or pro-porn,” she says. “It’s just a real part of our reality now.”

Jones, who is the daughter of legendary producer Quincy Jones, is currently at work for Pixar writing Toy Story 4, and starring in an upcoming comedy series produced by Steve Carell.

“Hot Girls Wanted” debuts May 29 on Netflix.

(From Yahoo.com/news)

Leave a comment

Plans to go Trans Part 2

If there’s one thing the Kardashian-Jenner clan knows how to do, it’s let drama unfold on camera. Perhaps never has this talent been more called upon than in the second part of the Keeping Up With the Kardashians special, About Bruce. But while emotions were pinging all over the place among all members of the family (except Rob, who was conspicuously absent), the overall theme was constant: Everyone wants Bruce to be happy… including Bruce.
During the hour-long docu-style show — which was shot before Jenner’s Diane Sawyer interview aired — Bruce took time out to speak with everyone individually to ensure everyone felt at peace with the changes ahead regarding his transition from male to female.
Related: 13 Things We Learned From Bruce Jenner’s Diane Sawyer Interview
Some (like Kim, Kourtney, and Scott) took Bruce’s news in stride, others (like Kris and Khloé), not so much. The youngest of Jenner’s children, Kylie, 17, and Kendall, 19, both handled the situation with a poise it’s often easy to forget they posses — at least, when they want to, that is. Through all the tears, however, were bright spots of joy and humor. We rounded up the best nine moments that show whether you admire Bruce, are upset by Bruce, or are totally confused by Bruce, you’re not alone.
1. Bruce revealed that he does not have an appointment to have gender reassignment surgery.

At the outset of the episode Kim cut right to the chase. Though words seemed to escape her and she was left communicating through awkward hand motions toward Bruce’s nether region, she managed to ask: “So, like you don’t have a surgery to remove that and then that means you’re the woman?”
Bruce replied, “Remove the little thing down there? You can do an awful lot down there. As of right now, no, as of right now, no, [I don’t have an appointment to do that].” However, he did reveal that he had only one appointment left, but it didn’t have anything to do with that.

2. Kim tried to understand if Bruce is heterosexual or a lesbian or something else.

With that technicality about “the little thing down there” out of the way, Kim moved on to the question of whom Bruce wants to sleep with moving forward. “I’m totally heterosexual,” he answered with confidence before adding, “As a guy, I was always attracted to women.” This only seemed to befuddle Kim more — not that we blame her.
“But if you were a woman, were you a lesbian?” she asked of the time he spent with her mother when he already felt like a female. “After that last appointment, you consider yourself a women,” Kim restated for confirmation. Bruce seemed to agree, prompting her to ask, “Would you date women?” To that, Bruce basically shrugged and said he didn’t know yet.
3. Scott asked Bruce if he was going to be the butchiest girl ever.

During a heart-to-heart chat, Bruce explained to Scott — who apparently had no idea Bruce was transitioning at all — the source of so much of his angst over the years. “My whole life I haven’t been honest with myself,” Bruce said. “I haven’t been honest with my kids and it’s been this big secret that nobody can talk about.” Scott then decided that Bruce’s internal angst must have been the cause of the friction in their relationship over the years (rather than his excessive partying and issues with drinking).
Scott then turned on the charm and asked the former Olympian, “Are you going to be the butchiest girl ever?” Bruce seemed to laugh this question off, prompting Lord Disick to then have another brilliant realization. “Sometimes I thought it was something about me, but I realized that probably I’m just perfect and it’s everybody else around me that’s got issues.” Typical Scott.
4. Khloé recovered from the initial shock of Bruce’s announcement and made up with her stepdad.

In About Bruce: Part 1, Khloé seemed to take Bruce’s transition harder than the rest. She was particularly upset because she felt Bruce had been lying to all of them. But on Monday night’s episode, Kendall urged her older half-sister to reconsider how she was responding. “You don’t need to be so hard on him,” Kendall said. “I’m sure it’s not easy to spill everything all at once, so maybe withholding information is just sort of a natural thing.”bruce-jenner-kardashian-family-secrets-hiding
At first, Khloé defended herself. “I’ve never been through something like that before. Yeah, my reaction was aggressive, but I was more mad that he was proceeding with something, but telling us something completely different until we cornered him.” But once Bruce arrived to talk it out, he quickly got her guard down.
“Sometimes because of my love for you and my feelings for you, I don’t want to hurt you and so I apologize for not being as honest as I should be,” Bruce admitted. Khloé accepted his apology and declared, “You’ve been a f—ing incredible father to all of us.” Despite the expletive, it was rather sweet. “I’ve always been Team Bruce,” she added. The clear indication was that she always will be.
5. Kourtney and Scott revealed that they are keeping the news about Bruce from their son, Mason… for now.

Kourtney, Scott, and Khloé reconvened in some sort of backyard paradise to catch up on the latest and during this chat, Kourt revealed that she doesn’t want to discuss Bruce’s transition in front of her 5-year-old son, Mason. “We are waiting to see what Bruce does before we tell Mason. I definitely don’t want him to find out from someone at school or something like that. I want him to find out through us,” she explained to Khloé, who warned her that it’s pretty much impossible to keep Mason shielded from everyone who could spill the news about his grandfather at any moment. Kourtney conceded that Khloé was probably right, but no real resolution was reached.
For his part, Scott seemed on board with Mason knowing — whenever Kourtney thinks it’s appropriate. “Kourtney and I have definitely talked about how we’re going to explain this to Mason,” he shared. “It’s only a positive for my son and my daughter to know all of the things that go on in this world.”

6. Kris, still clearly angry about her ex-husband’s decision, confessed she feels like Bruce died.

While Bruce seemed to think that Khloé was taking his transition the hardest, from this episode it seemed like Kris was the one feeling really torn apart. “I think I’m just so confused right now,” the matriarch confessed. “I think you shut me out a long time ago. You were angry, which made me angry.” Bruce saw things a bit differently and jumped in saying, “You treated me badly those last four or five years of our marriage. I wasn’t happy.” But Kris wasn’t buying it. “No, you were just very, very angry to the point where we had to separate and then get divorced. You never said this was going to be the end result, ever. So now it makes sense to me and I just think that being honest was something that we all would have appreciated,” she snapped.fb292a60-a07e-11e4-9f47-df235a727f92_kardashians-bruce-jenner-family
But her tone turned from anger to sadness as Bruce continued to reiterate how much he truly cares for her. “I just miss Bruce and that’s going to take me a minute to mourn that relationship,” Kris cried. “I’ll never really be able to have Bruce and all I have really is my memories. I look at pictures of you and the kids and I feel really sad. I feel like you died, like Bruce died, and it’s really hard for me to wrap my head around that.” (Just as a refresher, this is a woman who encouraged her daughter to pose for Playboy. It takes a lot to break Kris Jenner, but Bruce’s bombshell truly did.)
7. Bruce insisted to Kris he never took hormones while they were married and that he still loves her.
One sore spot Bruce was able to mend with Kris was by clarifying when he began his hormone treatments. “I didn’t take them until after we left, until after we went our separate ways. I wasn’t taking them while we were together. That was all done after we separated. I went to a therapist, started to figure myself out,” he explained. “I did none of that beforehand.” He reiterated, again, that he still loves her and — perhaps a bit surprisingly — she reciprocated.

(From Yahoo.celebrity.com)

Leave a comment

The Reality of Sex Robots

An article in the May 2015 publication of Vanity Fair, entitled “Dawn of the Sexbot”, discusses the rapid growth of the company, Realdolls and predicts that men having sex with dolls and robots will increase in our future. Realdoll makes the world’s best sex dolls.  Olivia_RD2C2_4They are so realistic that David Mills, who purchased the company in the early 2000’s, thought that the website was created with pictures of actual models made up to look like dolls. He was right. To research this article I perused the website and it felt like I was watching porn. Gone are the days of the novelty blow ups, thrown around like beach balls at bachelor parties and the price tag is no joke, they start at $6,000. Vince Neil, of Motley Crue, is reported to have spent 15k on his deluxe edition. Howard Stern had sex on air, with a Realdoll, and said it was the best sex he has ever had.

The dolls average100lbs/ 5 feet. They are made from molded silicon said to feel like real human skin. They have arms and legs that can be manipulated into a myriad of positions. You can buy a standard model or make your own- customizing everything from eyeliner to pubic hair. Many predict a future that goes beyond this. Realdoll is designing models that have robotics- Massaging genitals, vocal responses and simulated orgasms in response to manipulation. So how far out are sex-robots? In 2006 DR. Henrik Christensen, the chairman of the European Robotics Network at the Royal Institute of Technology, at the University if Stockholm, predicted that humans would be having sex with robots in the next five years. In his Book, Love and Sex with Robots: The Evolution of Human- Robot Relationships, David Levy professed that by 2050 robots will have the capacity make themselves romantically attractive, desirable, and able to fall in love with humans. Right in line with these predictions are two films that have protagonists navigating relationships with AI (artificial intelligence) females. In last year’s film HER (Starring Joaquin Phoenix and Amy Adams) our hero falls in love with a program (voiced by Scarlett Johansen) that is designed to interpret his emotional needs. Although they have only a vocal relationship, Phoenix’s character falls in love  exmachina This month the film Ex Machina (a play on the Latin phrase: deus ex machina, “a god from the machine”) tells the story of a misanthropic internet genuis who hires a research assistant to administer a Turing test to a female robot. The test subject is an attractive, emotionally intelligent android named Ava, (played by Alicia Vikander). “She” actualizes humanity by –Spoiler Alert– using her femininity to manipulate her examiners into getting what she wants; freedom. Hmmm…A female using her guile to get what she wants from men…?? I could have written that movie about my time in Hollywood, but I digress.

Is this technological progress or an abrogation of our sexual mores? Are we living in a time of de-humanization? We have to admit that we are more disconnected than ever. Half of the communication of people under the age of 25 is texted. We are programmed to get exactly what we want when we want, with-out human interaction. ubiquitous free pornography is a key swipe away. Our experiences are validated by “selfies” and how many “likes” we get. How do we actually meet each other anymore? People at Starbucks, glued to phone screens, look away only to grab their double, non fat,carmel, Frappuccinos. It’s no wonder our grandparents stayed married. They didn’t meet on-line and they never logged on to Ashley Madison to have an affair because they met on a street in Paris, in person, and fell in love while fighting WW2. In this age of digital immediacy it begs the question- Are we falling out of human connectedness or are we reverting back to our biological inheritance? Perhaps men long for the origins of emotionless sex. Our genetics dictate that we inseminate as many females as possible. When we were nomadic hunters we took females by force and got laid without having to go to Chevy’s and a Nicholas Sparks film. I wonder, If you got men to be REALLY honest and asked them if they could have sexual gratification without the hassles of emotional entanglements- what would they say?

Leave a comment

Whats Wrong With Me? What to do about low desire

Last week, Sprout Pharmaceuticals resubmitted its drug flibanserin to the Food and Drug Administration for approval. Flibanserin, in case you haven’t heard, is a drug intended to treat low sexual desire in women. The F.D.A. has rejected it twice already, and will most likely reject it a third time because (if you’re Sprout) the F.D.A. is sexist or (if you’re the F.D.A.) the drug doesn’t work and isn’t safe.

But the biggest problem with the drug — and with the F.D.A.’s consideration of it — is that its backers are attempting to treat something that isn’t a disease.

Flibanserin purportedly treats a condition called hypoactive sexual desire disorder in women. But H.S.D.D. was removed from the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 2013, and replaced with a new diagnosis called female sexual interest/arousal disorder, or F.S.I.A.D.

Why the change? Researchers have begun to understand that sexual response is not the linear mechanism they once thought it was. The previous model, originating in the late ’70s, described a lack of “sexual fantasies and desire for sexual activity.” It placed sexual desire first, as if it were a hunger, motivating an individual to pursue satisfaction. Desire was conceptualized as emerging more or less “spontaneously.” And some people do feel they experience desire that way. Desire first, then arousal.

But it turns out many people (perhaps especially women) often experience desire as responsive, emerging in response to, rather than in anticipation of, erotic stimulation. Arousal first, then desire.

Both desire styles are normal and healthy. Neither is associated with pain or any disorder of arousal or orgasm.

The new diagnosis is intended for women who lack both spontaneous and responsive desire, and are distressed by this. For these women, research has found that nonpharmaceutical treatments like sex therapy can be effective.

But I can’t count the number of women I’ve talked with who assume that because their desire is responsive, rather than spontaneous, they have “low desire”; that their ability to enjoy sex with their partner is meaningless if they don’t also feel a persistent urge for it; in short, that they are broken, because their desire isn’t what it’s “supposed” to be.

What these women need is not medical treatment, but a thoughtful exploration of what creates desire between them and their partners. This is likely to include confidence in their bodies, feeling accepted, and (not least) explicitly erotic stimulation. Feeling judged or broken for their sexuality is exactly what they don’t need — and what will make their desire for sex genuinely shut down.

Apparently we still haven’t learned our lesson about what happens when we pathologize normal sexual functioning.

In a 1972 issue of The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, the neurologist Robert G. Heath reported that he had recorded the brain activity of a young man suffering from epilepsy and “severe mental illness,” including “a five-year history of overt homosexuality.

The patient had electrodes implanted in his cortex, which was then thought to control pleasure. He was given a “three-button self-stimulating” device, with which he could zap his own brain for three hours at a time — which he did, about once every 10 seconds. Researchers showed him stag films (read: porn), introduced him to a female prostitute and measured his brain activity during heterosexual intercourse. Dr. Heath said the treatment was effective.

A year later, homosexuality was voted out of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Now, of course, only a fringe minority of the medical community would suggest that sexual orientation is anything other than a normal aspect of human sexuality.

This analogy between desire style and sexual orientation is imperfect: There is no reason to suspect that responsive or spontaneous desire is innate. In fact all desire is somewhat responsive, even when it feels spontaneous. But Dr. Heath and Sprout are both part of the long history of trying to call “diseased” what is simply different.

When a woman experiencing responsive desire comes to understand how to make the most of her desire, she opens up the opportunity for greater satisfaction. Outdated science isn’t going to improve our sex lives. But embracing our differences — working with our sexuality, rather than against it — will.

(From NY Times)

Leave a comment

Hookers – The first feminists?

In the nineteenth century, a woman who was well paid, owned property, had sex outside of marriage, performed/received oral sex, used birth control, wore makeup, perfume or stylish clothes and didn’t hide it, was probably a prostitute. In a time when women were barred from most jobs and had no legal right to own property, prostitutes of the old west were very successful and respected. Thaddeus Russell, in his book, A Renegade History of the United States, proves that marginalized people, (like hookers) not discussed in history class, were the real catalysts for important social movements. His contention is that fin-de-siècle prostitutes who migrated out west were the pioneers of feminism.

In late 19th and early 20th century, women could only work in a couple of industries. A 1916 study by the US department of labor reported that the two major occupations for women in the country were department store clerking and light manufacturing. Both paid an average weekly salary of $6.67, barely enough to subsist. Other choices for women to become financially stable were: 1.Break the inequality 2. Marry into money. Charlotte Perkins Gilman, a leading feminist of her time, noted that human beings are the only species in that one sex lives entirely dependent upon the other for existence.

A perfect place to challenge this status quo was the “Wild West.” In 1850, the non-Indian population of California was 93% male. Entrepreneurial women with moral inequities saw an opportunity. Sex workers came to the west and quickly became the highest paid women in the US. Many salaries were double what male trade union workers made. Historian Paula Petrick found that approximately 60% of hookers in Helena, Montana between 1865 and 1870, “reported either personal wealth or property or both.” The most successful prostitutes in the country became “Madams”. They bought mansions, turned them into brothels and managed the business of sex. Madams were some of the wealthiest people in the country and were pillars of their society. They lent money to cities like Denver and San Francisco for land grants or water rights, entered into politics and were instrumental in the developments of the towns they did business in.

Black women thrived as well. It is unlikely that there were more wealthy or powerful black women in the nineteenth- century than Mary Ellen “Mammy” Pleasant and Sarah B. “Babe” Connors. Pleasant, an ex-slave, gave loans to elite San Francisco residents. She sued to desegregate the city’s street cars, 60 years before Rosa Parks, making her the mother of the human rights struggle in California. Connors’ brothels were some of the most luxurious establishments in the mid-west. They became nationally famous for ragtime jazz musicians that would play there.

Madams not only paid their workers far higher wages than most other industries, they were the first to provide benefits for employees including free birth control, healthcare, legal assistance, housing and meals. Few American workers from either sex enjoyed such benefits. When moral reformers tried to outlaw birth control, hookers single handedly kept the industry alive. In the 1870s, 5% to 10% of women in American cities were prostitutes. They made up the majority of birth control consumers. Consequently, the industry was kept alive until 1920 when contraception production and distribution was legalized.

Between 1909 and 1917, 31 states passed “red-light abatement” laws allowing courts to shut down buildings used for immoral purposes. This lead to laws forbidding the keeping of a “disorderly house” or in any way managing prostitutes as a madam. This forced prostitutes onto the streets and arrests for street-walkers skyrocketed across the nation. This also allowed the entry of pimps. Without brothels and madams, whores were forced into the “protection” of criminals. With the banishment of red light areas in cities, prostitution moved from an industry of female power to male power. It’s been a hundred years and not much has changed. Whores are subjected to the mistreatment of pimps and organized crime, resulting in violence and sexual slavery.

Gone are the days of sex workers being respected members of society and what they did to foreshadow the feminist movement is mostly forgotten… but here are some more of their contributions-

Equal Pay: Most prostitutes were paid higher than most men during this time.
Self-defense: Women in brothels were known to carry pistols and defend themselves.
Wearing Make – up: The “rouge” of a “painted woman” was seen as immoral and promoting vice.
Wearing Perfume: Until 1929 mostly prostitutes and “Low level” women used perfume.
Dancing in Public: Any overtly sexual dancing was considered practice of blacks and prostitutes.
Smoking: No respectable women would smoke and would hide it if they did.
Stylish Clothes: Only whores wore the color red which was taboo during this time and was considers the color of sex. They also wore scandalous clothes that showed their calves and shoulders.
Oral Sex: Sodomy laws in 48 states forbade fellatio even for married until the 1950’s. Sex outside of marriage was rare unless it was with a whore.
Entertainment: Ragtime, the precursor to Jazz, was mainly played in brothels in the west.
Integrated Workplace: Towns of the early west were integrated. No more seen then in brothels where workers were multi-cultural and interracial sex was commonplace.
Occupational Benefits: Brothels were one of the only places where workers were able to have health benefits such as free birth control and regular paid doctor visits.


Being GAY is defintely a choice!

Confession time.

To all of my Christian brothers and sisters who insist that homosexuality is a choice, I need to break down and finally admit something: I agree with you.

I believe that it absolutely is a choice too, only not in the way that you may have meant.

But I guess that’s largely the crux of the problem we have here. I think you use your terms too loosely without really thinking them through. When you say quite matter-of-factly that homosexuality is a choice, I’m not sure you really know in that moment, just what you mean by “homosexuality”.

Far too often Christian, when you make the statement that being gay is a sin, what you’re really doing without realizing it is reducing all LGBT people down to a sex act — as if that alone defines sexuality.

You’re denying any emotional component in their lives, any capacity to feel real love or show genuine affection toward someone else.

In a gross oversimplification, you’re labeling a complex, fully formed human being as merely a performer of intercourse.

That’s something you would never do with heterosexuality, and especially not with your own sexuality, because you understand implicitly that your sexual orientation is about much more than a physical act. It’s a much deeper part of who you are than that.

It’s about far greater things than just plumbing and gymnastics.

You know that in your own life, the physical act of sex isn’t the totality of your sexuality — that it is also about affection and companionship and the desire to love and be loved. It’s about who you are drawn to and attracted to and compelled to be close to.

In your own story, you experienced those things firsthand before you ever thought about or experienced the act of intercourse. In those moments when you first began to understand your own sexual identity, it snuck up on you and surprised you. There was likely no internal battle, no great wrestling, no real conscious choice to be made.

It was not a decision that you came to, but a realization.

As a third grader, I remember we used to play tag on the school playground during recess — the boys against the girls. (They, after all had “girl germs”, so you had to avoid them lest you be touched and immediately infected). One sunny afternoon, a girl named Lori chased me across the steaming blacktop. Something hit me as we ran breathlessly through the school yard. I suddenly started to realize that I didn’t want to get away from Lori that much anymore. In fact, I sorta wanted her to catch me!

In that moment, there was no decision (other than the decision to start running a whole lot slower).

After that, the journey of the coming weeks and months and years was about more and more being revealed and uncovered over time — never a bit of it chosen.

Christian, you probably recall this in your own story of sexual identity and self discovery don’t you? You simply felt naturally and quite involuntarily, the impulses you felt.

By following those impulses you were making a choice, too. You were choosing to be authentic and true to your heart and mind’s leading. You were choosing to agree with the truth about how you loved. The alternative would never have been an option.

Why is it so hard for you to believe that LGBT people are operating any differently?

It’s rather careless to treat the gay community as if they are choosing their path of orientation, because what you’re implying when you do so, is that they are naturally wired to be straight but are making the conscious decision to act in direct opposition to this. You are charging them with the most profound emotional treason.

Does that line of thinking work at all if you superimpose it onto your own life? That would mean that you could just as easily be gay as straight; that you could, with enough cajoling and suggestion and support and prayer — choose to be attracted to, desiring of, and aroused by someone of the same sex.

Regardless of many Christians’ attempts to claim otherwise, two LGBT human beings involved in a committed loving relationship are not damaged by one another. They are, as with loving heterosexual relationships, encouraged, challenged, enriched and supported by one another. (If you don’t want to take my word for it, ask them).

We can no longer ignore this critical distinction when we toss around our blanket statements about the gay community. It’s time that we who claim both Christianity and heterosexuality, ask some very difficult questions about what we really mean when we say that homosexuality is a choice, and that this choice is a sin.

When we use these words in this very limited and narrow way, we’re also assuming that our own inclination, toward not just sex, but affection, intimacy, companionship, romance, and love, are all within our control and alterable — that they involve decision on any level.

We’re also assuming that anytime we have sexual relations with someone, that it is always an activity disconnected from and devoid of love. If we choose that path, we’re opening up our own expansive sexuality up to the prospect of being reduced down to solely the act of intercourse.

Further, we need to look at the Scriptures we so easily throw at the LGBT community and ask whether those handful of verses really refer to a person with beautiful inclinations toward love and affection and companionship, or whether they just refer to someone doing something with their body parts, and also ask how we apply those verses to actual flesh-and-blood human beings seeking authentic relationships.

What did the Bible writers reference when they used the words translated as “homosexuality”? (No such word existed when it was written, so this is a crucial question to ask and seek to answer well).

In this very important conversation where words do matter, we also need to jettison useless ones.

There is no such thing as a “heterosexual lifestyle”, just as there is no homosexual lifestyle. These terms have no real meaning or value. They speak no truth about any of us. They serve no purpose but to demean people and insult them and avoid respectful dialogue.

We should throw them in the garbage and dare to ask the much more difficult questions about how love and affection and intimacy and sex are connected — in all of us.

As straight individuals, we can’t demand to be drawn with great detail and precision, while simultaneously grossly caricaturing the LGBT community. Their hearts are as vast as our own, and their stories filled with all the nuance and complexity that we have experienced in ours.

Yes, LGBT people are absolutely making a choice.

They are choosing to be the most honest, authentic versions of themselves. They are choosing to be led by the unfiltered direction of their hearts, just as you and I are. They are choosing to relent to the things that in all of our lives, never can be chosen.

The only relevant choices for straight Christians are whether or not we will treat the LGBT community as fully complex, intelligent, emotionally intricate human beings; and whether or not we will be willing to examine both our personal opinions and our theology accordingly.

The choice is ours.

(From Huffington Post)