Dear Neely,

Sincerely,
Lover Boy, Boston, MA

Takeaway points:

• 40 seconds: The amount of time you’ve been with someone is a factor, but try thinking less about WHEN you should say I love you and more about WHY you want to say it and you will have your answer.
• 54 seconds: There are 3 times when you shouldn’t say I love you. Tune in to hear what I have to say.
• 2:07: When you can feel really good about saying I love you.
• 2:47: A lot of times women are advised to let the man say I love you first. I explain why.
• 3:25: It should be less about gender and more about your motive for saying it.
• 3:45: The worst that can happen is that the other person doesn’t say it back but if you were saying it for the right reasons, at least you stayed true to the honest feelings you had. See this Seinfeld clip for George’s dilemma:

Submit your dating/relationship questions to neely@blastmagazine.com.

What is it about sweat that turns us on? (Media credit/Yay Micro)

I’ve long been fascinated by the subject of pheromones, specifically in the context of sexual attraction. For those of you not familiar with the term: A pheromone, according to Wikipedia, is “a secreted or excreted chemical factor that triggers a social response in members of the same species.” Much has been written about the role pheromones play in mating and attraction, including the infamous sweaty T-shirt study. In layman’s terms, though: Ever notice how you’re either attracted to or repulsed by a romantic interest’s natural scent? Well, there’s more to that than you may think.

I was excited to contact Eric Holzle for this article about his groundbreaking company Scientific Match (tagline: “The Science of Love”), which I discovered a few months ago but was founded in 2007. Holzle predicted his company would revolutionize the dating services industry by matching people based on non-matching DNA samples taken from their cheeks. He claimed that well-matched couples would enjoy each others’ natural scents, have more fun in bed, and bear healthier children than those who are genetically similar. Maybe so, but the company’s mating strategy never seemed to gain mainstream traction, its premise titillating but perhaps too far-fetched and impersonal for the romantically inclined (not to mention the service was probably pricey). I agree about the unromantic idea of it all – who wants to be matched with cells from a cheek swab? – but still remain fascinated by the role pheromones play in helping us, consciously and unconsciously, to select a suitable genetic match and curious about other, less clinical ways to harness the power of pheromones. (As an aside: If you really want your mind blown, consider the research that has found the birth control pill may be responsible for reversing a women’s natural sense of smell: That is, women on the Pill like more the smells (i.e. pheromones) that remind them of home and kin and thus are attracted to men with whom they’re genetically incompatible.)

Sadly, though, as I began to write this piece, I discovered Holzle had recently passed away. Shortly after my discovery, serendipitously perhaps, along came a representative from Love Scent who wrote to me via Twitter about the company. Here’s the even funnier part: More than two years ago, I had written about Love Scent on my old blog, in an entry entitled “The Nose Knows.” Essentially, the company’s concept is to sell sex pheromones in a bottle to help men and women attract that special someone. I don’t understand the science of it all but human pheromones can, apparently, be recreated in a laboratory. Love Scent then bottles those synthetically-created pheromones and sells them to the masses at various prices, depending on which product is desired.

There are several other companies that sell pheromones for the purpose of attracting mates, but Love Scent seems to be leading the pack. I don’t doubt their authenticity, so I asked them to send me some samples. A couple weeks later, I received several products, including The Edge towelettes (for women and men), Perception, Scent of Eros Unscented (unisex), Scent of Eros (for her), Chikara, Alter Ego (for him), and The Edge (for him). As the instructional sheet explained, their products range from pheromone colognes and scented concentrates to additive formulas and essential oils. They also sell unrated pheromone colognes – pheromone-containing colognes on which they have no clear data. Their “Fab Four” kit is only for seasoned “phero-gurus” – in other words, “if you have to ask, it’s not for you.”

It would have been nice to experiment with the samples during my single days (the product seems to be best suited for singles, anyway), but I figured I could wear one of them around my boyfriend to see if it was particularly … ahem, arousing. According to the Psychology Today article linked above, “since it’s known that women can detect genetic compatibility by smell – it’s not that men can’t but that so far no one knows – the onus is on females to sniff out a suitable squire,” but because Love Scent markets their products to both men and women, I enlisted the help of one my boyfriend’s male friends who was coming to town with his girlfriend. We asked Joe to smear on some of The Edge (for him) without his gal’s knowledge before going out to the bars.

After he applied the moist towelette, my apartment, quite frankly, smelled like a gigolo, or at least how I imagine a gigolo would smell. Unfortunately, Joe never had a chance to read the instructions: “Watch out for over-application,” which is especially true for The Edge because it is highly concentrated. Don’t get me wrong: It smelled good, but it was so overpowering that it practically consumed the place. Eventually, Joe confessed to his girlfriend, but I’m not sure it would have made any difference if she hadn’t known. I also used one of the samples – Scent of Eros – dabbing it on my various pulse points as instructed. Love Scent says that women have reported additional success when applying to ankles and thighs, but I stuck to wrists and behind the ears. It smelled lovely, like any number of musky perfumes I might buy at a department store, but again there’s no way to know if our significant others were friskier than usual because of the pheromones. Plus, both Joe and I are in fairly new relationships in which we can’t keep our hands off our significant others, anyway. I didn’t expect my boyfriend to attack me like a ravenous lion looking for prey, but I did wonder if I’d be able to detect more subtle behavior changes that would indicate the product was working its magic. I can’t say that I witnessed anything different in him.

Perhaps these products would be good for people in, say, stale relationships, so as to rev up a decaying sex life; in a fairly new relationship if you’re sex life has already decayed, well, then you may have more problems than a topical product (that Richard Gere in American Gigolo might wear) could ever solve. Although, a testimonial from “Julia” on Love Scent’s site makes it seem that their products have the power to unite couples in trouble: “My boyfriend had decided that he wanted to break up. We agreed to go to lunch on his birthday. I wore some of your magic oil and he went crazy…..We are back together. I also put some on a handkerchief and then under the seat of his car…..He keeps commenting on how his car smells like me.” I’m not sure how much stock to put on testimonials but Love Scent’s site does have a ton of them.

It should also be mentioned that Love Scent pheromones may be worth a try if only for the placebo effect. It’s long been documented that the placebo effect has enormous impact on people’s ability to heal. The Wall Street Journal recently wrote a piece about this effect entitled Why Placebos Work Wonders. If someone applies one of Love Scent’s products with the idea in mind that they have a secret, extra edge, they may exude more confidence because they believe themselves to now be more attractive to potential mates. Dating and attraction is often about confidence – it’s all in the head (no, not that head), as they say. So any suggestions or ideas that can inspire confidence when it comes to your dating life is a usually a good bet, unless of course, the idea is to wear a hat like this.

Another thought I had about using these kinds of pheromones is that once you run out of the product your natural scent will be exposed, and whomever you’ve managed to woo with your pre-made pheromonal concoction will now quite possibly be repulsed by you and have no idea why. Don’t worry, though, Love Scent accepts orders in bulk.

Susan Baxter, 32, founded Hire a Boston Wingwoman in 2010.

Susan Baxter, 32, has the solution for single Boston guys looking for love: Wingwomen. Sure, you’ve got your Bud Light-guzzling, cleavage-ogling, popped collar-wearing wingman already, but isn’t the same old “you distract the less attractive friend while I talk to the hot one” routine getting a little stale? Baxter’s wingwomen get straight to the point with confidence, class, and a well-worth-it fee: the girl you’re going after.

For clients of Baxter’s company, Hire a Boston Wingwoman, it works like this: You and a wingwoman go to a bar or a lounge, or wherever you want to go to meet chicks. You scan the room, zoom in on your potential love interest, and your wingwoman goes in for the kill. It might begin with a compliment (“I love those shoes!”) or a question (“What’s your favorite drink here?”). Then, she might say something like, “This is my friend Joe; we’re looking for a bar to go after this. Do you know of anywhere good?”

“She kind of hangs around in the background once the introduction is made,” says Baxter. “If it doesn’t work out, then the client tries another woman. And if it doesn’t seem like the woman is interested, the wingwoman can pretend to be the client’s girlfriend.”

Wingwomen are better sidekicks than wingmen, Baxter says, because “Women tend to have their guards up when they go out; maybe it’s a girl’s night and they are just out for some cocktails with their friends and aren’t looking to talk to guys. Women feel less intruded upon if a woman comes up to them. They have their guards up when a man goes up and says, ‘Hey, I’m Joe, how are you ladies this evening?’ It’s old, and it’s lame, and she’s like, ‘Oh, here we go again.’”

Even better, adds Baxter, “It’s a boost of confidence to walk in to a place with a beautiful woman by your side. Girls like competition, so if they see you with an attractive woman, they’ll think you’ve got something to offer.”

So what makes a successful wingwoman? Generally, says Baxter, they are outgoing, and unafraid to approach and strike up conversation with that intimidating, hot girl you’ve got your eye on.

“You’ve gotta play the part,” she says. “You can’t go to that trendy, upscale bar if you look like you just got out of a Red Sox game; it’s gotta be realistic. But each wingwoman has a different personality. Some are bubbly and are good for clubs, and some are more intelligent and would be good for a social networking-type party. They’re attractive, outgoing, social, and willing to go up to a woman and say, ‘Hey, where’d you get your hair done? I’m looking for a new salon in the area.’”

Baxter, who has a master’s degree in applied sociology from the University of Massachusetts, started her business in September of 2010 with the knowledge that “a lot of people are shy and are intimidated to go up to people at a bar,” she says. “People tend to just stand there at the end of the bar and wait to be approached.” Plus, she was already being a wingwoman for her guy (and girl) friends, so why not make it a business?

“My ‘aha’ moment was when I was watching an episode of the ‘Tyra Banks Show,’ and a woman was on there who was a wingwoman for her friends,” says Baxter. “And I was like, ‘Wait, that’s what I do!’ The idea had spread to New York City and to Las Vegas, and I thought, why not Boston?”

Now, Hire a Boston Wingwoman employs nearly 40 wingwomen (and counting–she’s hiring!) in their 20s, 30s and 40s. The business works with about 10 clients a weekend, with many repeat clients. Fall is the busiest time of year for the company, which Baxter attributes to several factors: “In the fall, people are coming back from their vacation or their summer fling, and are looking for something more serious. The holidays are coming and they don’t want to be alone; it’s time to settle down. Plus, fall weather is cozy.”

Hiring a wingwoman costs $65 an hour, with a two hour minimum, and is $30 for every half-hour thereafter. Several testimonials on the company’s website attest that it’s worth the price: “My wingwoman focused on making connections and harnessing intuition,” says client Scott Alden. ”The method was to hang out with her, be myself and seize the moment when it was right. Women who saw that I was with her felt more comfortable around me, and I didn’t have to work as hard. I felt comfortable, too.” Michael, a client from Cambridge, writes, “I felt really comfortable after meeting the wingwoman, who introduced me to a couple of very attractive ladies.  I have already re-hired her because she was great company and made me very confident.”

There’s no guarantee that a wingwoman will help you find your future wife, of course, but who can argue with at least giving it a try? Besides, you get to be seen with a hot, confident woman by your side instead of your cologne-drenched, awkward-pick-up-line-using best friend.

Paul (Justin Long) admitting to Jess (Zooey Deschanel) that her S&M tactics scare him.

The New Girl writers accomplished something remarkable with this episode. They managed to make Zooey Deschanel, one of the desirable women in show biz, unequivocally un-sexy. I’m aware this sounds like sacrilege to some, but trust me. Awkward achieved new levels in the climactic sex scene between Jess and Paul (Justin Long). But was it funny? EHHHHHHHHH.

For me the episode started off really strong, and organic. Jess and Paul are coming in from a presumably good date, taking off each other’s clothes in the entryway. Nick looks on from the couch in a judgmental, yet almost longing way, which seems to suggest the writers definitely want to pair them off down the road, but I can only handle one grievance at a time. Then as their panting and ecstasy wanders into her bedroom, Jess suddenly seems to realize that sex is about to happen. She sings a little ditty about “Intercoooourse” and then excuses herself to the loo. Then she endears us to her, yet again, when she motivates herself in the mirror and high-fives her reflection. A sharp cut later, we see no sex was had.

Her hesitations are understandable considering she hasn’t had sex since she broke up with Spencer after catching him in the act of cheating (her reason for moving in with the guys). As a result she has attributed his philandering ways to her lack of sexual prowess, and therefore feels she needs to be more adventurous. This is the obvious set-up for the hilarity to ensue as Jess shops for lingerie that would function better as a straight jacket, and raids Schmidt’s “red folder,” subjecting herself to 5.5 hours of the hardest of the core porn (from the audio it seems there were chainsaws and dogs involved at some point).

The guys were largely in the margins for this episode, which for me spelled danger. Thankfully, Schmidt got the most airtime, and continues to be my favorite character. Working in an office with all women certainly explained some of his behavior (some, not all) and seeing him struggle to be accepted was both funny and sad. It’s always a neat trick when a character can be both pitied and adored, and this episode added to the arsenal, providing us with more reasons to love and loathe douchebag with feminine tendencies. Despite not being asked, he begs his boss for an invite to her baby shower. Eventually he coaxes it out of her and vows to be the life of the party. At first he comes up empty (he thinks afterbirth is like an after party for the birth). Then he channels his frat boy side and turns the classy feminine affair into a full out raga. He even scores some drunk co-worker tail! Small victories, Schmidt. Small victories.

Nick and Winston were almost non-existent. Nick needs a haircut badly, but doesn’t like being forced to converse. This leads to a couple belly laughter visual gags. One, Nick finds a home haircut video on YouTube, but then the guy in the video gashes deep into his head, drawing a bloody geyser. Winston’s response, “Can we watch that again,” was expertly timed. The second is when Nick returns with a high-top fade and Jess refuses to take him seriously when he tries to bestow advice.

The centerpiece of “Bad in Bed,” the role-play scene between Jess and Paul, was well-acted and elicited a few chuckles, but it failed Jess by crossing the line. Jess leaped over the boundary of being adorably inept to disturbing and uncomfortable. because it made her out to be someone who doesn’t pick up on social cues to such a severe degree you aren’t sure how she would even have a job. It’s starts off silly, Jess sounded like a 40′s newspaper man and Paul imitating Jimmy Stewart. Then once it gets to be too complicated of a performance Paul suggests they stop pretending. Then once they share a tender kiss, Jess starts to choke him because she saw it earlier in a porno. I see the setup for the joke here, and I knew Jess was bound to try something awkward, but choking isn’t like someone bringing up a taboo topic at the dinner table, it’s violent and psychotic. If the show hadn’t done such a great job gaining my adoration for these characters I might have a harder time tolerating that scene. But I have the capacity to forgive their miscalculation. In the future though, “New Girl,” you can make Jess clueless and awkward, but don’t make her do things that seriously hurt other people. Then it is no longer funny, because we start to wonder if she might “accidentally kill all her roommates in her sleep.

Ultimately, no harm is done. Jess apologizes, and both Jess and Paul express their anxieties and admit they are products of the butterflies swirling around in their tummies when they’re together. Jess then FINALLY shows some competence and agency at the end of an episode, (most have notably ended with the roommates pitching in to help her “to show they care), and seductively kisses Paul in the elevator. Predictably they stop the elevator for a quickie, and the fellas are none the wiser.

My critiques with this episode may come off a lot harsher than the grade would reflect, but that’s mostly because I still enjoy this show immensely. Spending time in the apartment week-to-week is a ball, much like it was on “Friends.” Every week, you had your “Friend” that was annoying and whose jokes weren’t hitting, but you tuned in knowing that overall you wouldn’t be sorry you tuned in. Schmidt was that reason for me this week, and the Jess from this first half of the episode delightful. She was in over her head and in her attempts to feel in control she had a few memorable lines (see L.O.L.Ls below), but when she veered into insanity I wanted very badly to check out.

As long as the show remembers who these characters are and doesn’t deviate simply for a cheeky premise the show will be fine. Some particularly strong L.O.L.Ls in the episode’s first two acts and a solidly executed B-plot for Schmidt “Bad in Bed” out of a frankly deserving C range, but for relegating Winston and Nick to second-class citizens in terms of airtime, and causing me concern for Jess’ mental health I reluctantly seal this deal with B-.

L.O.L.Ls (Laugh Out Loud Lines):

- Jess on sex with a new partner: “It’s like starting a new job with a really weird interview.”

- Jess: “The V-Bomb and the P-Bomb…boom.” Paul: “I’m the P-Bomb, right?”

- “I’m gonna tap him like a maple tree.” “Yeah, I can drive stick.”

- “You’re like a Bond villain, you just told me you whole plan.”

- “Everything I know about sex I learned from Spencer, or the Clinton impeachment trials.”

- “I’m gonna need me some coral polyps because this starfish is hungry!”

- Schmidt on what Nick and his ex, Caroline, sounded like in bed in college: “You sounded like a rescuer talking to a trapped miner…Oh, oh yeah, are you okay down there?”

- “You know what they say, an afterbirth ain’t an afterbirth unless there’s some Schmidt up in it!”

This photo by Daphne Weld Nichols shows a bride who apparently came in to give her husband-to-be a photo album of sexy pictures as a wedding present. Channel 7 filmed this woman for a segment they did a short while back

The other day while sitting in the locker room at my gym, I saw a segment on Inside Edition discussing a new trend called “boudoir photography.” For those of you who didn’t study French, “boudoir” means a lady‘s private bedroom, sitting room or dressing room, or, according to Urban Dictionary, “a room where you can get S&M with Rihanna.” Let’s use the first definition for the purposes here. In this type of photography the photographer takes pictures of a woman in an actual boudoir (possibly hers) or in a studio designed to look like one. As you might have guessed, the woman posing is scantily clad. Boudoir photography isn’t necessarily a new art form, but as the segment mentioned, recently there’s been a surge of women giving boudoir photo albums as wedding presents to their fiances — the gal featured on Inside Edition did just that. Although you couldn’t see it through his pants, something was definitely happening down below, as the husband-to-be flipped through the final product, grinning ear-to-ear. And why shouldn’t he be … ahem, aroused? She looked hot and the photography was spectacular. The lady sitting next to me, who was in her fifties and looked a little something like this, shook her head in disapproval. “Is that really necessary?” she groaned, gnashing her teeth.

To which I now reply (because I didn’t then, managing only a brief smirk): YES! I think boudoir photography is the greatest thing since sliced bread and this and quite possibly these. If you’re going to be sleeping with one person for the rest of your life, which assumes you won’t be signing up for this God-awful site, anything you can do to spice up your sex life is a brilliant game plan. To the ladies: Men love when their partners confidently express their sexuality – a private, for his-eyes-only keepsake in the form of erotic pictures is the perfect way to show him that you want him and that you want him to want you. Plus, in fifty years, when your chest looks like this, he’ll have a reminder of what you used to look like, and just maybe he’ll be able to forgo the Viagra for a few more rolls in the hay or Craftmatic adjustable. It’s a win-win, really.

When I mentioned the segment to my boyfriend, he thought immediately of an advertisement in the back of Improper Bostonian. He remembered it, because, well … what able-bodied male wouldn’t remember an advertisement in which a woman is posing provocatively wearing nothing more than a bra, panties, and garter, with an expression on her face that’s saying, “Take me, lover, and have your way with me!”? So, the next day, when I passed by an Improper Bostonian sidewalk dispenser, I pulled out an issue and took a gander at the last couple pages. Lo and behold, there she was! A lady looking seductively at the camera, mouth agape, with the words Fantasy Photography by Daphne nuzzled between her supple breasts.

My interest was piqued – who was this Daphne lady? After perusing her Web site and watching a behind-the-scenes You Tube video of a client during a photo session, I decided to get in touch with her to find out more. Turns out, Daphne Weld Nichols has been doing boudoir (or fantasy) photography for more than 25 years. Her interest in the genre, as stated in her biography, began when she came across an article in Cosmopolitan Magazine, which told how a particular Playboy Playmate of the Month captured the eye of a Hollywood producer, who in turn sent for the centerfold model to audition for a part in his latest film. When the centerfold model arrived for the appointment, the producer did not even recognize her, stating that the woman in his office did not bare the slightest resemblance to the perfect fantasy girl he had seen in the magazine.

“In that moment, when I read that article, I said to myself, ‘men are truly duped,’” said Weld Nichols. It was at that moment that she felt she received her calling. ”I wanted to be the equalizer for the average woman who doesn’t have all the beauty enhancement techniques, products, services, and artists that help manufacture the unattainable, unrealistic images that men see in the magazines.”

Fantasy Photography by Daphne was thus born. Her clientele, mostly women, ranging from 18 to 90 (!), couldn’t be happier with their experience and the end product. Weld Nichols, a native Bostonian whose studio is located in Arlington, MA, echoed the trend of younger women booking shoots so they can give albums as wedding gifts to their husbands: “We just had an 18-year-old newlywed come in, and about 50 percent of our clients fall between 21-35.” Mostly married, working women who have money to spend take advantage of Weld Nichols’ services, which, in addition to the shoot, include a complimentary consultation, full makeup application and hair styling by her all-female crew of stylists, as well as plenty of pampering on the big day.

While the impetus for most clients is indeed to present their mates with sexy photographs, Weld Nichols explained that many women usually want or need the excuse of it being a gift, highlighting perhaps the more prurient desires of the fairer sex. Many also come in for facebook or Match.com photos. To take the edge off and make the client feel safe – most are anxious at the start of the session – Weld Nichols makes use of Feng Shui and healing energy to make the studio space as relaxing as possible. “We make an effort to tune into each client, since everyone is different, so every session is a unique experience.”

Tricia Traxler, one of Weld Nichols’ older clients, speaks to that connection.  ”I can’t emphasize enough the connection we made and their ability to get me to relax. It was like stepping into an alternate reality and peeling the onion in order to reach through the day-to-day pressures to get to the real and true beautiful self,” said Traxler, who lives in Massachusetts and owns her own business in executive placement. “It was a transformative experience.” Traxler came to Weld Nichols when she turned 50 to “cast in stone” her look at the time. “There is nothing like getting a beautiful, professional set of photographs made that captures your essence,” she opined. “No matter your age, you are at your peak of beauty once you have this experience with them and will want to go back again and again (and I have) to mark other milestones and track your progress in life. Everyone should do this for themselves and would be happier for it.  I did this for me but it is a beautiful, personal, heartfelt gift for couples to share.”

Over the years, Daphne and her crew have seen some incredible transformations – timid ladies letting go of their inhibitions and insecurities; average-looking women blossoming into swans – but her most memorable shoot was when a handicapped woman came to her studio. “Her husband carried her up to the third floor where our studio was at the time. She had been in an airplane crash as a young woman. She felt so happy, sexy, and beautiful after her session that she painted a watercolor of herself, named it ‘Fantasy Dream,’ and gave it to us.”

There have also been some bizarre moments in Weld Nichols’ nearly three-decade career, like when a woman came in, shook her hand and said, “Hi, my name is Rene and I used to be a man.” Or the time when a handsome man wearing a three-piece suit, carrying a briefcase, came in for a consultation for his bride-to be’s session and it turned out that he was to be the bride. “The day of the shoot, we kept looking around for his fiancé, until finally he came clean and told us he always wanted to be a bride in a white gown,” said Weld Nichols. “Most of these types of unusual occurrences have been with men – Harvard professors, judges, high-powered attorneys, some wearing full beards, who have secret lives as women.” She continued: “There have also been many married women who made it clear to us that they wanted to do the hot sexy photographs for their lovers on the side.” Yowza! Maybe they were members of this God-awful site.

Not all men, though, coming in to Weld Nichols’ studio are gender benders. “Dudeoir Photography,” as Daphne playfully calls it, focuses more on internet dating photographs, and business and traditional portraits.

I’ll admit that some of the studio shots I viewed on Weld Nichols’ website (unfortunately, I wasn’t able to visit the studio) reminded me a little bit of the gal in the glamor shot photo Napoleon Dynamite – in the eponymously named movie – pretends is his girlfriend, but many of the portraits are beautiful, capturing the romance and beauty of the female form in all its glory. And testimonials of Weld Nichols’ superior artistry, professionalism, and warmth abound: This woman even wrote a blog about her experience. Clients also have the option to be photographed at their own home, if a studio shoot isn’t their aesthetic ideal.

So if you’re about to walk down the aisle, if you’ve been married for several years and are looking to freshen up a marriage gone stale or want to make an already blazing union even hotter, or if you’re just in the market for a sexy album of yourself that you’ll be able to flip through for years to come, get thee to a boudoir photographer. Weld Nichols is waiting for your phone call.

Dirty Little SKYN Cosmetics Bags ($25)

You’re about to get lucky: Are you covered? The approach of World AIDS Day on Dec. 1 serves as a reminder that carrying–and, of course, using–condoms can be a life saving decision. Fashion designer Maggie Kervick and LifeStyles condoms want to show you that being protected can be fashionable, too.

Kervick and LifeStyles have teamed up for a line of  vinyl bags made to look like SKYN condom wrappers, part of the “I’m Covered Campaign.” One dollar from each purchase will benefit Answer, a national sex education organization associated with Rutgers University.

“I’m hoping to break down the stereotype that if a guy has a condom he is considered ‘prepared,’ but if a girl has a condom she is considered a ‘tramp,’” says Kervick. “The bag is a great conversational piece that will relay a message to onlookers about the woman carrying the bag–how she is confident, responsible, and protected.  The ‘I’m Covered Campaign’ reinforces the need for self-respect and a proactive approach in regards to protecting oneself from STIs and unwanted pregnancies.”

The bags come in three styles, the Living in SKYN Tote ($55), the Dirty Little SKYN Cosmetics Bags ($25) and the I’m a Slave for SKYN Wristlet ($20). Bonus: Get a free pack of LifeStyles condoms and information on how to use them with each purchase!

To learn more or to buy a bag, go to bagsbymags.com.

Living in SKYN Tote ($55)

I'm a Slave for SKYN Wristlet ($20)

Being an American citizen, I enjoy the freedom of expression enjoyed by artists in this country. However, I wonder sometimes if we grasp some of the ironies of how we express that freedom.

I am from Italy, which is known as one of the most romantic countries in Europe, a destination for lovers who come to visit from all over the world. So, perhaps I have a slightly different perspective on how Americans express themselves, particularly with regard to romance and sensuality. In Italy, we embrace these concepts in everything we do – the way we dress, the way we cook, the way we dine, and the way we live.

In America however, I sometimes sense a split personality with regard to these concepts. More specifically, I think we sometimes confuse our sensuality with sexuality, and as a result, try to keep both of them hidden for fear of corrupting our children. My point is, there is a difference.

For instance, if any part of the human body that would traditionally be covered by a bathing suit on a typical American beach is shown in a film, that film is rated for adult content, usually getting an “R.” If it is shown in a TV show, the scene is either deleted, or the “naughty bits,” as the British call them, are digitally pixilated out. And of course those areas are not necessarily even covered by bathing suits in Europe, as many of the beaches there are clothing optional.

In this type of censorship, there is no accounting for context. It’s not about the type of scene, but rather the anatomy. If it is a romantic scene, with a context of love and respect, soft lighting, and appropriate mood, it is considered just as “dirty” as a scene in which naked women are running around and shown as sexual objects and nothing more.

The same goes for modern art. Gallery shows in which the human form is depicted tastefully and sensually are regarded as pornography by many “morals” groups, leading some Congressmen to suggest that public funding from the National Endowment for the Arts should not be awarded to any artist who deals with the nude form. The chilling effect, when we approach the sensual and the sexual in the same way, is that we teach our children that nudity itself is a dirty thing, and that they should all be ashamed of their bodies.

That is why young adults in America go directly from puberty straight to pornography – because they do not have anything in between, such as public art or other forms of healthy nudity – things that would help them develop an understanding of sensuality.

Here is the ultimate irony. While we demonize certain parts of the human form, we don’t demonize treating women as sex objects at all, because we use sex to sell just about everything in the consumer marketplace. In TV commercials, young, attractive, and barely dressed women sell everything from cars to beer, weight loss plans to gym gear, breakfast cereals to vacation destinations – even snack foods practically guaranteed to make the men who eat them incredibly unattractive to the women used to sell them.

The difference here is context. We enter the world naked. It is our most natural state as humans, yet the naked body is considered dirty and inappropriate for all time zones. Meanwhile, treating women not as people, but simply as objects of sexual desire, which demeans all women in the process, is perfectly acceptable.

We need to create an environment in America in which sensuality is not confused with sexuality, so that we can all enjoy a freedom of expression that is based in context and meaning instead of an unhealthy and negative obsession with sex.

Imagine a married couple’s bedroom. They’ve just had a wonderful dinner (perhaps candles and wine were involved) and the kids (if they happen to have them) are tucked into their beds. They start kissing and one of them brakes away saying: “Not tonight honey, I’m sorry but I have a headache.” Stop right there. Let me guess — you imagined the wife making excuses right? Her husband (or any other guy for that matter) is bound to be the one who wants sex, right? Women on the other hand are the ones who like it less and don’t need it as often – so they are thought of as the sex that always ends up making the ‘not this time’ excuses. Or so we’re told from about the time we learn what makes boys and girls different. We’re constantly being convinced that there are strong biological bases for men wanting (and pursuing) sex more than women. They mostly boil down to the same old “it’s about the testosterone” or “men evolved to pursue multiple sex partners”. Because these pseudo-scientific claims include words with more than three syllables as well as references to Charles Darwin’s tried and true theory, these explanations tend to sound like facts. For starters, though, do these “facts” explain real human behaviors or just perceptions about what human behavior is (supposed to be) like?

Ever since Dr. Alfred Kinsey gave up gall wasps and decided studying human sex is more interesting we have been learning more and more about the realities of our species’ sex life. However, we still have quite a way to go and there’s a number of reasons for which it’s pretty hard to learn what’s actually going one. Firstly and most importantly, the subjects themselves – i.e.’ regular’ men and women – are a bit of an issue. As anyone who has ever seen a single episode of House MD will know: “People lie”. Dr. Greg House is a bit on the cynical side (to say the least), but he is right about one thing: people tend to stray from being truthful when asked personal questions by people in white coats or with any authority. And that’s basically what sex research is. A bunch of professors with strings of letters behind their names signifying how important and smart they are, asking delicate questions about how often and how much… You might be thinking that anonymous questionnaires are a way out, right? They are – but only to a certain degree because it’s been shown that people will still give the answers they think they’re supposed to. This happens even when they’re guaranteed complete anonymity. Consequently, at the end of the day the result really might not be all that enlightening.

Secondly, it’s very hard to discern nature from nurture. As in any study on fellow Homo sapiens – whether it’s studying the causes of diabetes, breast cancer or musical talent – it’s really hard to tell what is innate and what’s not. In the case of sex studies, the real question is discerning socialization and conditioning from innate tendencies (some people aren’t even sure it’s doable). People still don’t really know how much of our sexual behavior is the result of what our families and cultures teach us and what is determined by our libido and innate characteristics. So, for example, when I was 12-years old, my Mom made me watch “Bridges of Madison County” with her. If you haven’t seen it, I assure you you’re not missing much. Basically it’s a movie about a wife who cheats on a husband and hates herself for it (or something to that effect). So when the movie was finally over and I was a little surprised by my dear Mother’s question “Maria, what do you think is the moral of this story”. I had absolutely no idea. As far as I was concerned, the moral was that making movie with the words “bridges” and “Madison” in the title is not a very good idea. Because my Mom could see the blank expression in my face, she proceeded to lecture my on how this movie really is about the merits of per-marital sex. I didn’t quite understand so she elaborated that it shows how one should make sure to experience sex before committing to a lifelong relationship, because otherwise we might wind up with someone with an incompatible sexual temperament. I was 12. I still thought boys gave you cooties and at the time I was slightly traumatized. Now, I think this incident (and the general attitude in my house) went a long way to making sure I have a pretty healthy relationship with both myself and my husband (the story also makes for pretty amusing dinner party conversations). I’m pretty sure that if I had spent my childhood and adolescence being lectured on the long list of things ‘good girls’ don’t do, I probably wouldn’t be writing this piece right now. Would I still learn to enjoy sex and have a healthy relationship with my sexuality? Perhaps, who’s to say, but I’m pretty darn sure it would be very difficult. My story is just one example of how hard it is to disentangle the complicated factors which impact this very complex thing that is sex drive and sexual behavior in general.

Having said all that, scientists do keep having a go at studying the underlying causes of human sexual behavior and the determinants of our sex drive – and good on them! A recent study in Current Directions in Psychological Science by a Michigan psychologist Terri Conley and co-authors actually looked at some of most common myths about sexual differences between genders:

1. Men have more sex partners than women

Yes, men talk about their sex partners more than women do, but there’s no real data to show that it’s because they actually have more to talk about. It might be that they feel they can talk about it, because they won’t be called ‘sluts’ for doing so or…potentially they sometimes just make stuff up. Previously, sexologists largely based their studies of human sexuality solely on what subjects were telling the scientists (and remember there are some issues with that). Now, this really isn’t the way science should be conducted. If fictional doctors from fictional hospitals know that people don’t always tell the truth, surely super smart scientists should come around to that conclusion as well, right? Well good news – they did. Conley and colleagues came up with an interesting (if somewhat sneaky) way of getting their subjects to tell the truth about their sex partners – they hooked them up to a fake polygraph. Obviously, their interviews had no idea the thing didn’t actually work. The results were illuminating: Conley et al write, “When participants believed that their true sexual history could be revealed by the polygraph, gender differences in reported sexual partners disappeared.” Basically, it’s back to what I mentioned earlier – people tend to say what they think they should say, so women claim to have fewer partners and men tend to exaggerate the number of women they slept with. If you get them to speak truthfully it turns out that the differences in the number of sexual partners aren’t real.

2. Women aren’t into casual sex, men like nothing more

This assertion (scientifically) goes back to a now-famous study in which men and women approached subjects and offered to have casual sex with them. No women agreed to the proposition, but 70% of men did. According to a lot of folks, this was the ultimate proof that men were biologically hardwired for random sex and women avoided it. But, surprise surprise, things aren’t that simple. As it turns out, men and women were both more likely to accept a proposition if they thought the proposer would be good in bed — and women were much less likely to think that a random guy would have the skills to make it all worth the hassle. Plus there is the issue of safety – a random hookup is much less likely to turn violent for the guy involved. And not to be forgotten- the ghost of moralities past ‘slut-shaming’ – which is still doing pretty well for itself.

Finally:

3. Women are “picky,” but men will have sex with just about anyone

Conley et al point out that “assumptions about women’s choosiness have been based on our culture’s traditional gender dynamics” — particularly, the expectation that men should approach women while women should wait and silently bat their eyelashes at potential sex/romantic interests. One research team decided to turn the tables by asking women to approach men and a speed dating scenario. Here’s what happened:

“The mere act of physically approaching someone (i.e., simply rotating through potential partners and introducing oneself during speed-dating) caused individuals to evaluate potential partners more favorably (e.g., reporting greater romantic chemistry and increased likelihood of a romantic relationship developing). Moreover, when women approached men, women behaved more like men (becoming less choosy), and men behaved more like women (becoming more choosy). Thus, this research suggests that “choosiness” may be an artifact of gendered social norms concerning who approaches whom.” The review goes on to conclude that “gender differences are in fact rooted in much more mundane causes: stigma against women for expressing sexual desires; women’s socialization to attend to other’s needs rather than their own; and, more broadly, a double standard that dictates (different sets of) appropriate sexual behaviors for men and women.”

So, studies conducted so far suggest that there probably are some biological differences between men and women which may (or may not…) go beyond the anatomy of the sexual reproductive organs. The thing is, it’s currently an incredibly difficult exercise to actually dig through societal influences and get to the ‘biological core’ and the ‘true explanation’ of our behaviors. I wonder though how useful that would really be?

As just about anything, humans have complicated the relatively simple biology of sex with a lot of cultural influence. Simple things like eating and sleeping are no longer obvious to considerable numbers of human beings (notably insomniacs and people suffering from eating disorders). Why would we think that sexual intercourse is a simple act and we’ll all just follow our ‘biologic blueprint’ when we get around to it? And that’s assuming there really is one. Obviously, sex takes up a whole lot of people’s lives (doing it, thinking about it, watching card ads with nude ladies…) so we want to know as much as possible about it. In essence, this is a good thing – as applicable a science as any which may tell us something useful/enlightening about our nature. However, as I hope I have shown, the study of human sexual behavior is fraught with difficulty. Also, we need to keep in mind that it’s just that – the study of general human behavior and not research into what an individual human being should like/do. Really, the important take home message of most of this research is simply this: differences in sexual temperament are individual and not gender differences and it’s about time we got over this whole biological determinism thing and let people enjoy their sex lives without making thing difficult with gendered expectations.

On my old radio show, I had a segment called “The Apocalypse is Coming,” during which I talked about ludicrous stories in the news (while playing this song in the background, because nothing says human suffering like a Richard Strauss tone poem named Also sprach Zarathustra) that, in my mind, indicated the impending arrival of The Four Horsemen. Examples included: Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi’s book “A Shore Thing”becoming a New York Times bestseller (let me tantalize you with an amuse bouche from her ghostwriter’s Ms. Polizzi’s masterful novel, a book so blindingly brilliant it will undoubtedly be compared by posterity to “A Tale of Two Cities”and other such classics: “Gia danced around a little, shaking her peaches for show. She shook it hard. Too hard. In the middle of a shimmy, her stomach cramped. A fart slipped out. A loud one. And stinky.”); Ashley Dupre, disgraced former Governor Eliot Spitzer’s favorite call girl, getting her own dating/sex advice column in the New York Post, showing young women all across our fine nation that the road to success and a paid column in a national outlet can be achieved through good fellatio skills, spreading your legs for money, an ability to tolerate your customers wearing socks during sex, and having a “magic vagina;” And the invention of this.

I’d like to bring that segment back and introduce it to you, glorious readers of Blast Magazine, because with every passing day, I encounter more and more stories that can only mean one thing: The end is near. And because I love you (well, more like lust for you, but good enough) I want to share our final days together. 

Currently, there are two reasons the end is near (besides, oh, the obvious reasons, such as Iran trying to get its hands on nuclear weapons and other trifling headlines of that sort): 

1. New York City’s Board of Education is looking to hire a Condom Coordinator to distribute condoms at public schools throughout the city and for that arduous task will pay them $88,000 to start (including medical benefits and a pension, and a free lifetime supply of rubbers – OK, that last part’s not true). This is when people like you and me need to pack it up and call it a day. For the love of God (and I’m not even religious), whatever happened to the old basket-outside-the-nurse’s-office strategy? Just UPS a vat of Trojans to the schools’ Health Services centers with a note saying: “Please distribute.” Because that makes much more sense than wasting a ridiculously large amount of taxpayer dollars on such a moronic job. Would that be so “hard” to do? Ba-dump-bump. On a side note: What would the Coordinator’s title be when he or she gets promoted? Magnum Condom Coordinator? Double ba-dump-bump. I’ll be here all week, folks!
2. Let’s leave New York City and go straight back to New York City for our next news item. Any minute a fiery ball of…fire is going to crash down upon us, just you wait and see. It’s been reported that sexual education classes at NYC public high schools and middle schools might delve into some X-rated lessons next year.And I’m not talking about lessons on all sorts of cool words that start with the letter X, like xanthareel, xanthospermous , or xylotomous. No. These lessons are of a more salacious nature. According to the New York Post story, here’s what the kids will be learning in addition to geometry and Greek mythology legends, like that one about the “Trojan” Horse. Sorry, I couldn’t help myself.

• High-school students go to stores and jot down condom brands, prices and features such as lubrication.
• Teens research a route from school to a clinic that provides birth control and STD tests, and write down its confidentiality policy.
• Kids ages 11 and 12 sort “risk cards” to rate the safety of various activities, including “intercourse using a condom and an oil-based lubricant,’’ mutual masturbation, French kissing, oral sex and anal sex.
• Teens are referred to resources such as Columbia University’s Web site Go Ask Alice, which explores topics like “doggie-style” and other positions, “sadomasochistic sex play,” phone sex, oral sex with braces, fetishes, porn stars, vibrators and bestiality.

I’m all for sexual education classes in schools today, because let’s face the facts: A lot of parents aren’t educating their children about sex, and it’s everywhere. In New York City alone, a large percentage of children live in single-parent homes, which means the burden of  parenting falls to the mother (in most cases) and when she’s out working multiple jobs that leaves little time for those birds and the bees discussions. That leaves the school systems, in loco parentis (I’ve come around to this argument). Kids are going to have sex so we need to educate them about sex (including abstinence). But have we really gotten to the point where we need to talk to our 12-year-olds about vibrators, porn stars, and bestiality? In the words of the Peanuts Gang’s inimitable Lucy: “Good grief!” 

Until next time, Blast readers, that is, if we haven’t plunged into the darkness of universal destruction by then. 

** 

Do you have any stories you want me to cover in the next installment of “The Apocalypse is Coming”? Leave your ideas below in the comments section.

“You only touch a nerve by telling a truth.”

Last week, I wrote an op-ed piece on the recent sexual assaults in Park Slope, Brooklyn and the ensuing contretemps surrounding a police officer’s controversial remarks to a woman about her attire. The remarks, seen as sexist, had feminists crying foul. In the article, I asked Susan Walsh of Hooking Up Smart (HUS), and Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon.net for their thoughts. Walsh and Marcotte are ideological opposites — Marcotte is one of the leaders of today’s feminist movement; Walsh believes that Marcotte and her ilk’s contemporary feminist doctrine is dangerous and counter-productive. After linking to my article on HUS, a war raged in the comments section, in which anti-feminist rants from men abounded. Naturally, Marcotte supporters were in the minority.  One battle in particular pitted some poor gal named “Stephanie” against everyone else, and although I disagree with her position, I give her credit for taking the time to understand contrasting viewpoints. As of press time, there were 370 comments and that number will likely grow until Walsh’s next blog entry.

Like many of Walsh’s posts that deal with feminism and modern-day sexual mores, my piece clearly hit a nerve among men. As Rebecca Traister once wrote in a Salon.com review of Maureen Dowd’s contentious book Are Men Necessary?: “You only touch a nerve by telling a truth.”

The truth in this case, I believe, is a very real burgeoning discontent among men today with the feminist movement.  While it’s difficult to know if the comments within Walsh’s post are representational of the larger male population, it would be disingenuous not to acknowledge a growing resentment, restlessness, and frustration that, contrary to what some may argue, does not seem to be operating at the fringes. In fact, it’s a sentiment that seems to be growing daily and in large numbers. Men are angry. And I suppose they should be.

In a recent article entitled Why Men Are in Trouble, which I also mentioned in a recent piece I wrote about the supposed sexist remark of Senator Scott Brown, author William Bennett offers insight into why this may be the case.

“The data does not bode well for men. In 1970, men earned 60 percent of all college degrees. In 1980, the figure fell to 50 percent, by 2006 it was 43 percent. Women now surpass men in college degrees by almost three to two. Women’s earnings grew 44 percent in real dollars from 1970 to 2007, compared with 6 percent growth for men. In 1950, 5 percent of men at the prime working age were unemployed. As of last year, 20 percent were not working, the highest ever recorded. Men still maintain a majority of the highest paid and most powerful occupations, but women are catching them and will soon be passing them if this trend continues.”

Additionally, in 2008, men represented 93 percent of all workplace deaths, even though women were responsible for 43 percent of all hours worked, and about 95 percent of workplace suicides in that same year were committed by men. Single men constitute about 60 percent of the homeless population.

Men are the ones now crying foul about countless topics: the divorce court system; Title IX; gender quotas; loosened employment physical standards (e.g. firefighters, police officers, military personnel, etc.) for women but not men; confusing dating mores (is it no wonder they’re running in droves to the Seduction Community?); male gender bias in school systems; disingenuous domestic violence numbers; misleading wage gap statistics; derailment of stimulus money for “testosterone-laden, shovel-ready” jobs. (On the topic of domestic violence: I’m beginning to see more and more examples of female on male violence. Just look at reality television, for instance. Shows like Teen Mom and Jersey Shore show frequent examples of this sort of abuse. In the case of Teen Mom, one of the female leads was arrested for her actions, but when Jenni “JWOWW” Farley attacked Mike “The Situation” Sorrentino – see video here – nobody seemed to bat an eyelash. Compare that collective indifference with the headlines sweeping the nation when Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi was hit by a man – see video here. How many examples of female on male violence are actually reported, anyway? And finally, God help me for knowing those fist-pumping delinquents’ names by heart.)

A blogger named “Byron,” a frequent commenter on Walsh’s site and an eloquent one at that, sums up the growing disillusionment in a different way. In his personal blog, he writes: “We cannot apply identical expectations to both men and women, as men and women are, by definition, different. If you have a law or a morality that is very easy for 50 percent of the people to live under and very hard for the other 50 percent, it isn’t a fair law, and it isn’t a healthy morality.”

If the pendulum of gender equality once swung all the way to one side it’s now perhaps well on its way to the other.  I’m truly thankful to the Suffragettes of yesteryear, who, frustrated with their social and economic lot in life, helped women make tremendous gains. I’m truly thankful to the feminists who helped pave the way for equal pay and equal rights and equal opportunity. Just the other day, I was having a conversation with a woman who has been a college professor for 35 years. She told me that when she first started teaching, a couple of the male faculty members at the college where she worked asked if she wanted to join the faculty wives club. “I sent my husband,” she said with a Cheshire Cat grin. While not the most abhorrent of statements and probably not intended maliciously, I certainly wouldn’t want to go back to those days (although watching this guy live would have been fun).

I can’t help but wonder, though: When it comes to the present day, as men’s bitterness grows and women’s progress continues at the expense of men’s, has the fairer sex gone too far? Are we now committing the sins that we spent years admonishing men for?

Men sure think so. They argue misandry is on the rise.

The anti-misandry movement, however, is also on the rise, bubbling just below the surface of mainstream reporting. Type in the word “misandry” into a Google search, though, and all sorts of articles and book titles appear. On YouTube, there are hundreds of videos dealing with the subject. Websites and blogs dedicated to exposing feminist indoctrination flourish. (This video in particular I found poignant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZAuqkqxk9A.)

Men are starting to feel like they’re the enemy. That sentiment makes sense when you come across blogs like Eve’s Daughter, in which she dedicates an entire post to listing all the ways men are rape-supporters. The first bullet point says a man is a rape-supporter if “he’s ever sexually engaged with a woman while she was drunk or high.” There go the celebrated days of Woodstock…

When I inserted myself into the hullabaloo over at Walsh’s site, I asked the male commenters the following question: “There seems to be a growing animosity and resentment from men towards the feminist movement, and it’s certainly reflected in these threads. I am curious to know: From a male POV, what could the feminist movement do to bring men on board?”

I don’t align myself with the modern-day feminist movement (although I am grateful for gains previous waves achieved), but I am curious to know from the male perspective if there’s a way to bridge what I see as an ever-growing divide – one that more and more seems to be pitting the sexes against each other rather than uniting them. Men want to be heard when it comes to these topics; they want to talk freely and openly as men but, ironically, feel that their honesty only brings tsking, shame and derision (the way women once felt or still feel, perhaps). But how can we get anywhere unless we have honest discussion? Or, in the words of blogger Byron: “How do you talk between the sexes about the differing experiences of sex?”I, for one, wanted to listen to what they had to say. Here is a small sampling of some of their responses:

Wayfinder: For me, the good in the post-first-wave feminist movement was co-opted on the academic side around the time of deconstructionism. The academy has moved past that, but feminism is still mired in the 20th century ideologies that produced it. In attempting to root out underlying ideologies behind prejudices, they became the thought crime enforcers they were trying to fight.

So, I’m not sure that the feminist movement needs men or women at this point. I think its ideology is due for being replaced with something a bit more gender-realist, something that acknowledges that there are differences between the sexes and that the women actually like it that way aren’t brainwashed.

To put it another way, feminists have defined masculinity as the enemy while simultaneously trying to ape the male-success standards. Cultures have existed that celebrated women’s achievements, but feminists discount them because they aren’t defined as male achievements.

To address the point I think you’re looking for, feminism can’t bring men on board until they stop defining male masculinity and female femininity as the enemy.

Jesus Mahoney: Way back in 2002, Shelby Steele wrote a great essay for Harpers entitled :The Age of White Guilt: and the disappearance of the black individual” about the Civil Rights Movement in America, and I think that much of what he says there can be applied to the Feminist Movement equally well.

I’m sure you can find a link to it somewhere, but the gist of the article is that a political movement that demands recompense for grievances (i.e. a movement of people playing the victim card) robs the individuals that comprise that group of their personal power, and therefore cannot achieve anything of lasting value.

In short, insofar as battle against racism has been won at all, it’s been done by black individuals who have shown their worth in society, not by black groups shouting for freedom and equality.

In short, people should stop jockeying for political power and start reclaiming their individual power.

If women want power, they need to start living lives of power instead of complaining about being victims.  In other words, they have to display their value to society instead of just screaming about it.

In short, Feminists must have been snoozing through high school English while their teachers were exhorting them to “show, don’t tell.”

Sigmund Freud barely needs an introduction. He is none other than the father of psychoanalysis; the man who gave the world the ‘ego’ and ‘Id’; the famous Austrian doctor who discovered the subconsciousness and who persuaded millions to blame (all) their problems on their mothers. But Freud also made other ‘discoveries’ which are not as often spoken about (for good reasons…) today, but the effects of which resonated through bedrooms and medical textbooks worldwide for almost a century. And those are related to Freud’s theories about female sexuality.

Freud never held females in too high a regard and didn’t make much of a secret of it. The idea of ‘penis envy’ clearly could be spawned only in the mind of a man who didn’t think women could aspire to much at all. His personal relationships with women were complex to say the least – having an affair with your own sister-in-law isn’t the best way to secure a happy marriage and blissful family life. It is perhaps no surprise then that his writings about women are full of sweeping statements on their (sexual) inferiority with little or no factual support. The surprise is that people still took his word for it at least half a century later.

Freud’s initial idea was that as women matured — emotionally and sexually — their erotic zones were ‘transferred’ from the clitoris to the vagina. This ‘reallocation’ of the center of sexual pleasure was, according to Freud, crucial for reproduction and the proper development of a heterosexual identity. Freud’s disciples went somewhat further and began interpreting the failure to achieve vaginal orgasm as a sign of frigidity and not solely sexual immaturity. In the quaintly titled “The sexually adequate female,” Frank S. Caprio, a contemporary follower of Freud’s ideas elaborated that “…whenever a woman is incapable of achieving an orgasm via coitus, provided the husband is an adequate partner, and prefers clitoral stimulation to any other form of sexual activity, she can be regarded as suffering from frigidity and requires psychiatric assistance.” (The Sexually Adequate Female, p.64.). This gem of a book was first published in 1953 — the world was a decade away from the equal pay act and Betty Friedan’s seminal ‘Feminine mystique’ — and yet here was Dr. Caprio diagnosing mental disease in women who liked making use of the only known organ whose sole biological function is to give pleasure!

Women who desired having their clitoris stimulated were thought to behave like men, because they preferred their ‘external’ organ pleasured rather than indulging in the ‘feminine passivity’ of accepting a phallus into their vagina. Consequently, it was thought that as a result of their obvious lack of feminine behaviors they were likely to be awful mothers and would probably fall victim to mental disease and general ‘social disintegration’ (talk about jumping to conclusions). A treatise on sexual issues from 1937 strongly recommends (in the spirit of disaster prevention) that if a woman is unable to reach coital orgasm, sitting astride the man ‘is certainly better than titillation of the clitoris’.

Today we know that there is absolutely no evidence for Freud’s idea of a transfer in female erotic zones — it seems he made the whole thing up sitting in his comfy Vienna office. What’s more, in light of current anatomical and sexological knowledge the whole idea seems pretty absurd (although, I’m sorry to report, the myth of a ‘better’ vaginal orgasm is still alive and well in a lot of corners around the Internet and many peoples’ minds).

The notion of a clitoral orgasm being different from a vaginal one was only really possible in a world where there was very little knowledge about female anatomy (Freud never really cared to learn any himself). What we have come to think of as the ‘clitoris’ is quite literally only the tip of the organ, which in fact can be up to 5 inches long. The internal portions of the clitoris surround the vaginal opening and canal and have more sensory endings than the relatively poorly innervated vaginal walls. Plainly speaking, ‘vaginal orgasms’ are commonly the result of either external indirect stimulation of the clitoris (perhaps the source from the partiality of many 19th century women towards ‘riding astride’ their husbands was that this position results in stimulating the clitoris without the use of hands); or internally – friction against the vaginal walls excites the nerve endings in the interior parts of the clitoris and…kazaaam! Vaginal orgasm.

However, there is much more to the (female) orgasm than just the vagina or the clitoris. Medically speaking, the orgasm is an autonomic physiologic response to various kinds of stimulation which is often (but not always) experienced or perceived as sexual. Importantly, stimulation doesn’t even have to be tactile and there is definitely no rule which says that female genitals have to be touched at all for an orgasm to take place. “Women on Top: How Real Life Has Changed Women’s Sexual Fantasies” – Nancy Friday’s follow-up book to her ground-breaking book on female sexual fantasies “The Secret Garden” – gives numerous descriptions of women who achieved orgasm by simply fantasizing in the shower or having their nipples caressed. No penetration of any kind was involved. Now, that would be pretty much guaranteed to blow Freud’s mind if he ever heard about it. He’d probably swiftly proceed to come up with elaborate schemes about how, for example, too much education resulted in the transfer of sexuality to the brain instead of the vagina or how a perverted breast-feeding relationship with a mother could have been the cause of nipple stimulation leading women to orgasm. In fact, in his essay “The Psychology of Women” Freud actually did formulate his cure to nearly all manner of female sexual ‘neuroses’ – the “abandonment of the life of the mind”. In Freud’s opinion, women simply couldn’t handle having their brains and vaginas functioning properly at the same time. It was an “either, or” as far as Sigmund was concerned (now, maybe it’s just me, but I really think this guy seriously underestimated half the human species…).

Freud never cared much about what women themselves had to say about their sexuality. He pretty much had his mind made up before he even got started on ‘studying’ the issue. Mind you, there wasn’t any particularly useful studying to do, unless you were willing to do some actual high quality primary research with real women, which Freud wasn’t. He just listened to a few ‘experts’ and added some of his own wisdom. Importantly, back in those days, experts were all men who, similarly to Freud, did not think women could contribute to the scientific knowledge base, even if they were the object of study. These male experts reasoned that. being the superior sex, they could surely draw their own conclusions which would by definition be more insightful than anything a woman could tell them about her ‘private parts’ (also, it would spare them the embarrassment and possible accusation of indecent behavior which would have surely cropped up once word of investigations with real women would have spread).

It perhaps doesn’t take much feminist deconstructing to come to the conclusion that male doctors’ doctrines about sex had a lot to do with male expectations and experiences of sex. Men generally thought that penetrating a vagina provided for a jolly good time, so surely women must really like it too. And if they don’t, then, by golly, there must have been something wrong with them. I’ll admit – this is a bit of an oversimplification of doctors’ discourse on female sexuality prior to the 70s. But just a bit… All manner of medical professionals (psychiatrists, family doctors and gynecologists to name the most prominently involved) firmly believed that favoring clitoral stimulation makes a women “sexually inferior” because she doesn’t need a penis to have a good time. The logic was that a penis made a women complete – that’s what the cavity of the vagina is for, right? So if a woman doesn’t want to be ‘complete’, she’s surely demented in one way or another.

Thankfully, we moved past these assumptions since then, but there is still a lot of negative over-thinking going into female sexuality. As the amazing sex-educator Heather Corinna points out, “ever hear someone talk about a penis orgasm?” No? That’s because male sexuality is accepted as more natural, almost simpler in a way – men want sex. What more is there to analyze/think/talk about? Women, on the other hand…ah…now that’s more complex…they want sex but they don’t, they’re maternal and not sexual, they have different orgasms in different places and it’s all oh so complicated. I’m not saying we shouldn’t study female sexuality – far from it! But we should definitely step back and let individual people enjoy their sex lives without worrying that they have inferior orgasms or there’s something wrong with them because they guy who invented psychoanalysis said so…

Park Slope, Brooklyn: One of New York City’s most desirable neighborhoods and home to a whole bunch of famous people, like Steve Buscemi and that actor everyone confuses with Samuel L. Jackson. Recently, though, Park Slope hasn’t been so idyllic. A slew of gropings, rapes, and molestations have occurred since March, making the locale more infamous than anything else. The suspect has been targeting women between the ages of 20 and 35, all of whom at the time of assault were wearing short-hemmed clothing. (Police do have a “person of interest” in custody as of October 11.)

A recent Wall Street Journal article covering the attacks had me thinking about what I believe to be a tragically misguided focus. According to the Journal, police officers patrolling the area have been telling young, female residents to be mindful of what they’re wearing because the assaulter has been going after women dressed in short skirts. Granted, some of the quotes from the officer, as mentioned by “Lauren,” sound a bit obnoxious, especially if, in your head, you add a certain tone or emphasis on particular words. But there’s no way to know exactly how those warnings were delivered by the officer, unless you have access to a flux capacitor and a Delorean. I digress. The point I want to make is that instead of focusing on the assaults and keeping women safe, some members of the fairer sex have seized on the cops’ sartorial advice and deemed it inappropriate, insensitive, and sexist.

NYPD spokesman Paul Browne responded to the uproar by saying: “Officers are not telling women what not to wear — there’s a TV series that does that.” (Do I smell a career in stand-up?) He continues: “They are simply pointing out that as part of the pattern involving one or more men that the assailant(s) have targeted women wearing skirts.”

Alas, Skirtgate was born.

The incident soon became the latest cause celebre for feminist groups, inspiring protests and yet another Slut Walk, a demonstration against explaining or excusing rape by referring to any aspect of a woman’s appearance. Not too long ago I attended the Boston version of Slut Walk, organized by feminist figure Jaclyn Friedman.

While I agree that the way a woman dresses is NEVER an invitation to be raped or sexually assaulted (I’m having visuals of the horrific Jodie Foster rape scene from The Accused), I do have to wonder: What’s so wrong with suggesting that women exercise a little common sense in these scenarios? If I know that a man is assaulting women wearing short skirts in a certain area around a certain time, you can damn well be sure that I’ll take all precautions necessary. Nor would I ever tell my daughter (if I ever have one) the following: “Sure, honey, wear those hooker heels and that dress that barely covers your vagina proudly when you walk through Boston Common at 3 a.m. on a Saturday.”

The notion that humanity is perfectible — that we can reason with or socially engineer sick-minded individuals — is puerile. We do not live in an ideal world. We never will. Unfortunately, we live in a world where police won’t always be able to save everyone or catch the criminal right away. Unfortunately, we also live in a world where this happens and people like this exist. We do not live in an ideal world. So what’s wrong with merely suggesting that women take precautions?

I admire their passion and dedication, but I do think that certain feminists are so ideologically attached to their ideas that they often become blinded to reality. What if a woman came forward on the night of a Park Slope attack and said she felt she had been saved by an officer’s counsel earlier that day, in which he mentioned to be sure to cover up late at night? Of course, there’s no way to know for sure in this hypothetical if that’s the reason the attacker avoided her and went after someone else, but would the feminists turn a blind eye to this kind of testimony? I wonder.

I would be remiss, however, if I didn’t mention the fact that I remember many nights walking home late from the bars in outfits that, to be sure, revealed some skin. Part of me feels a bit uncomfortable, hypocritical even, espousing calls for good judgment when the mistakes of my youth burn brightly in my memory. But the truth is I was lucky. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with dispensing advice based on the filtered wisdom one gains with age.

After writing this piece and tiring of my own opinions on the matter, I was curious to see what others had to say about the Park Slope contretemps, so I reached out to a few people who I knew would view the incident through different lenses. The first of which was Susan Walsh, author of the popular blog Hooking Up Smart (HUS), a strategic take on dating, sex, and relationships. Walsh was a guest on my radio show back in the day. She was recently profiled in this tremendous piece about the lives and realities of today’s single woman. HUS has a large following and is worth a weekly check-in.

Next, I contacted the aforementioned Jaclyn Friedman, Feministing.com’s Jessica Valenti, and author and speaker Amanda Marcotte, all avowed feminists and leaders of the movement. Marcotte responded; I never heard from Friedman or Valenti. Marcotte, by the way, is no stranger to controversy – this woman has balls! (In one of her entries for John Edwards’ campaign blog, of which she was blogmaster, she wrote: “Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.” Yowsa!)

In many of Walsh’s blog entries, she goes toe-to-toe with all three ladies, so I figured their juxtaposed opinions would be interesting. Below are Walsh’s and Marcotte’s thoughts on Skirtgate and a few other topics I wanted them to answer about dating, sex, relationships, and feminism.

Their responses couldn’t be more different. Check them out below – they are worth a read. Who do you agree with?

BLAST: What was your reaction to the Park Slope incident in which cops warned women about wearing short skirts?

MARCOTTE: First, I want to draw your attention to the fact that the NYPD responded to feminist complaints.

It was unacceptable of the NYPD officers to exploit the existence of a rapist as a cover story for an obvious power trip on women. Authoritarians all over the world love how rape gives them an excuse to indulge the misogynistic desire to tell women what to wear and how to act, but the police work for us, and because of this, they should treat women with respect. We women, after all, pay their salaries with our taxes.

WALSH: I understand why the women who were stopped by the policeman were offended. He may have been insensitive in his approach. I think it’s very important to consider his intention, though. As far as I can tell he was attempting to advise women about real risks to their safety. Though the journalist suggests that the police department disapproves of all shorts, skirts and dresses, he appears to have specifically taken issue with “short shorts” and dresses that “show a lot of skin.” Is it in fact prudent for women in that neighborhood to be careful about their appearance and behavior at night? Of course!

The WSJ article describes how many women in the neighborhood are taking concrete steps to stay safe. 80 have attended self-defense workshops. Women have stopped wearing high heels because they make it difficult to run away from an assailant. Women have been observed taking taxis to travel two blocks at night. All of these strategies are sensible and effective. Do they guarantee that a woman will not be attacked? Of course not, but they lessen her risk considerably.

Does it lessen a woman’s risk to refrain from “showing a lot of skin” at night in the very neighborhood where these attacks are occurring? Probably! It sure can’t hurt! Evidence that all of the attacks have been against women in skirts just adds to the good sense of such a strategy.

What’s going on among feminists here is that the political is getting in the way of the personal. When we stifle prudent advice to women about keeping themselves safe from assault because it doesn’t fit the agenda of sex-positive feminism, we risk the health and safety of women in a very real and measurable way.

What do cows’ uteruses, decreased diary production and attitudes towards women’s openly expressed sexuality have in common? Unless you’re an expert in bovine anatomy the answer may come as a surprise to you: it’s nymphomania.

Nymphomania is a term for short inter-oestrus periods in cattle, but it’s also (mainly?) used to describe women with ‘abnormal’ sexual urges. The way that this abnormality was defined has changed dramatically over time, but is best characterized with a quote from the famous Dr. Kinsey himself — “A nymphomaniac is someone who has more sex than you do.”

The story of nymphomania is a sad tale of a time when women weren’t acknowledged as sexual beings and judged/jailed/held in mental hospitals against their will if they were not willing to conform to the ideal (or rather sick contortion) of women as sexless creatures. It’s a story of women who were all forcefully classified within the virgin/whore dichotomy. The only reputable way to lose one’s virginal status was to become a wife and bear children conceived in a dark bedroom with as little pleasure as possible. Of course, at the same time it was a very different deal for men. They were mostly allowed as much premarital sex as their money could afford – as long as they weren’t defiling reputable women that is.

Well into the 20th century women weren’t supposed to like sex. Sex was thought to be something that men pursued and women unwillingly gave up so that they could fulfil their lives’ goal by bearing the heirs their husbands wanted and the little darlings they needed to lavish with their innate motherly feelings on.

The thing is, although society has largely managed to ignore this fact and a tonne of medical books has been written to the contrary, women do in fact have a sex drive. When girls hit puberty and start producing sex hormones (oestrogens as well as testosterone) they start having (consciously or not) sexual feelings. There is a small percentage (less than 1%) of the population, both female and male, that is asexual and genuinely does not want or need to have sex. The rest of us are destined to a life in which carnal urges will play a role at some point. However, the whole concept of nymphomania is built-up on the completely false assumption of sexual urges being unique and healthy to men and a sign of disease and lack of mental stability in women.

In order to understand the history and societal significance of nymphomania, we have to take a closer look at its supposed opposite: female frigidity. The latter was basically assumed to be the status quo for female sexuality in the US and much of Europe (if you weren’t a ‘working girl’ that is). There was never much evidence to back this up (ahem…I don’t know, maybe because it’s an entirely false claim?). However, this perception was likely to be fueled by anecdotal evidence from men who spent their wedding nights with terrified young wives who had no idea about sex and all of a sudden had their clothes ripped off and a penis inserted into their vagina with no prior warning (other than perhaps fumbling with breasts for a few seconds) and nothing to arouse them beforehand. Usually, the deed was done within a few minutes, the marriage consummated and legal, and the wife left thinking (quite correctly) that she’s survived something awful and dreading it happening again. As much as we may like to, we shouldn’t put all the blame on the husbands. The ‘poor’ chaps were brought up and socialized to think women take absolutely no pleasure in sex and they perceive it a mechanical act which needs to happen in order to make them mothers. Who needs foreplay if all you really want is to change diapers.

However, there were women the world round, who could not be convinced they don’t like sex. Even if everyone around them tried to convince them otherwise they still seemed to enjoy making use of their genitals for things other than procreation. And so nymphomania was born. It was defined as a multitude of behaviors ranging from “lascivious glances” and flirting through masturbation and attempts to convince husbands to have more sex, all the way to actual physical attacks on men to enforce intercourse.

It’s not a recent invention. Nymphomania, or a Dissertation Concerning the Furor Uterinus was written by an obscure French doctor, M. D. T. Bienville, and translated into English in 1775. The good doctor helpfully explained that “Eating rich food, consuming too much chocolate, dwelling on impure thoughts, reading novels, or performing “secret pollutions” (masturbating), overstimulates women’s delicate nerve fibers and leads to nymphomania.” Thank goodness there were people like Dr. Bienville to look after the “delicate nerve fibers” of women who eat too much chocolate or indulged in the obscenity of reading novels…

In the Victorian period the common perception – among the medical profession as well as patients – was that strong female sexual desire was a symptom of disease. Sexual madness was an actual concern among (mostly) “refined and virtuous” women and their physicians. And the women weren’t just worried about possible inconveniences. Openly having a libido could get a woman into serious trouble in Victorian England. And by trouble I mean an awful mental hospital that one could get locked away in for years. Shockingly, women didn’t have to want sex to be diagnosed as a nymphomaniac. The outright opposite was sometimes true and victims of sexual assault were deemed to be diagnosed with this ‘disease’ just as women who bore illegitimate children, “abused themselves” (i.e. masturbated), or were judged as promiscuous. Once at the asylum, women underwent a pelvic exam to determine a number of things including the size of their clitoris and the moistness of their vagina. If any of these were deemed unsatisfactory by the physicians the patients were forced to undergo ‘treatments’. These were nothing like the rather benign ‘vibrator therapy’ of the early 20th century and instead involved induced vomiting, bloodletting (also in the reproductive organs), restricted diet, douches to the head or breasts, and, at times, clitoridectomies (i.e. removal of clitoris).

Attitudes towards women and sexuality relaxed – in parallel with women’s growing role in society and their increased independence – and over the 19th and 20th century women were rarely locked away for wanting sex. A bit of a breakthrough for nymphomania came with Freud. The father of psychoanalysis certainly has quite a few accomplishments to his name, but he was no expert on female sexuality. Freud was a self-proclaimed misogynist and his views on women are perhaps best known thanks to his misguided (to say the least) theories on penis envy. Freud’s views on nymphomania rather missed the spot as well, but they did redirect the discourse around it. Building on his now discredited idea of the superiority of vaginal vs. clitoral orgasms, Freud and his disciples claimed that, far from being a sign of excessive sexuality, nymphomania actually sprang from frigidity. The sexually immature woman, they argued, was unable to orgasm during intercourse and took lovers in order to achieve sexual satisfaction. And so for a time nymphomania became the disease of unsatisfied women. With this we were getting closer to the crux of the matter – nymphomania is in fact a term that describes women who like sex and are willing to actively pursue. Sounds familiar? Ah, right. Isn’t that what we expect of healthy males?

As the sexual revolution rolled around, the medical establishment, as well as regular people, became more accustomed with the fact that women can in fact enjoy sex without being mentally ill and the psychiatric definitions changed in step with societal perception. Distressingly, the term held out in court rooms for an inexcusably long-time – nymphomania was commonly used in rape cases to defend male rapists – “the victim didn’t just ‘ask for it’, your Honour she basically threw herself at my client, this sick nymphomaniac women.”

A brief overview of the history of nymphomania as seen through the American Psychiatric Association’s official guide to madness – the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) – is fairly illuminating about more than just development of psychiatry. In DSM-1 nymphomania was listed as a “sexual deviation”. When DSM-III was published in 1980 nymphomania was ‘degraded’ to a “psychosexual disorder”. By 1987 nymphomania and its male counterpart, Don Juanism, had been replaced them with “distress about a pattern of repeated sexual conquests or other forms of nonparaphilic (nondeviant) sexual addiction.” In 1994 (DSM-IV) even sexual addiction was abandoned and straightdope.com has a great explanation for why this happened: “perhaps because the non-gender-specific nature of the term laid bare the speciousness of the whole project: If men as well as women can be sex addicts, and if many male victims (Bill Clinton, Joe Namath) are successful, admired, and largely unrepentant, it seems stupid to characterize as an illness what a lot of people would consider an accomplishment.”

Curiously, according to the WHO women can still suffer from nymphomania. The WHO’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) includes “Excessive Sexual Drive” which is divided into satyriasis for males and nymphomania for females, and “Excessive Masturbation”. What makes this even more curious is that there is no definition of “excessive sexual drive” (Dr. Kinsey had a pretty good suggestion…) and doctors “considering such a diagnosis are advised to formulate their own criteria of excessive sexual drive”. For some reason when it comes to tuberculosis, AIDS or schizophrenia doctors aren’t left the leeway to come up on the spot with what constitutes a disease symptom but when it’s an issue concerning our sex lives we’re (or at least the WHO is) happy to hand it over to them. This is potentially dangerous as we’ve seen how much of what defines healthy sexuality has nothing to do with health but everything to do with societal conventions.

In the 21st century we’re slowly moving past policing women’s sexuality (and men’s – but let’s be honest, we never really cared so much about their ‘sleeping around’ anyway). However, pop-culture and our daily lives – I’m sure – abound with examples of how we judge women’s sexual conduct differently (read: more harshly) then men’s. For example, in a recent episode of “How I Met Your Mother” (a hugely popular sit-com hailed as the new “Friends,” one of the main characters says that if he were to meet a women and have sex with her the same day she would be a “huge slut.” It doesn’t seem to occur to him (or his best friend with whom he’s having the conversation and who nods approvingly all the way through) to judge himself on the decision to have sex within hours of meeting someone. He’d just be doing what all dudes want to do – aim to have a ton of sex, right? She’d, on the other hand, be a “slut.”

It’s important to see slut-shaming for what it is – a new incarnation of “nymphomaniac-shaming.” Women used to be judged as crazy for liking sex, now they’re just ‘immoral’ if they have ‘too much of it’ (according to a recent survey the number of sex partners a women has to have to merit being called a slut is … five).

Nymphomania isn’t quite dead. It pops up every now and again – usually in the close company of the phrase ‘sex-crazed’. It’s not as damning as it used to be. The term doesn’t sentence women to years in mental institutions anymore; it’s more of a joke. “Slut” is the new, dangerous bad word. Again, no mental institutions are involved, but societal ostracism can be as bad as ever. We, as a society, should remember about nymphomania’s fate every time women are slut-shamed. And most of all, we should remember the moral of that story: female sexuality has a (continuous) history of being unreasonably judged and policed and unless we put a definite stop to it, gender equality will continue to be a goal and not reality.

During last week’s Democratic debate, when questioned how she put herself through school, Senate hopeful Elizabeth Warren responded: “I didn’t take my clothes off” (referring, of course, to Scott Brown’s salacious 1982 Cosmopolitan pictorial, the proceeds of which apparently helped him pay for his education at Tufts University). Everyone laughed and all was merry. A couple days later, when asked during an interview by a WZLX disc jockey for a response to Warren’s jab, Brown responded: “Thank God.” Cue the insanity.

Now, Brown’s response could have been taken two ways. He could have meant that it would have been tragic for her to feel the need to pay for her education by offering her body in exchange for money, as many college women seem to be doing nowadays. (On a side note: Watch me grill the CEO of seekingarrangements.com, the “elite sugar daddy site of those seeking mutually beneficial relationships,” in this video (below). I’m the one on the left.)

Or, Brown meant that seeing Elizabeth Warren in the buff would be about as pleasurable as a root canal.

Of course, we all know that he meant the latter, which is why a bunch of women (and men, too, although let’s face it: more women) out there have their panties in a bunch. That sexist pig! Or, in the words of Terry O’Neill, president of National Organization for Women,  as told to Politico: “This is the kind of sexist misogynistic attack that we have very sadly come to expect from politicians whenever there is a strong woman who is capable and really dedicated to the betterment of all the people.”

To which I say: Get your panties out of your ass, unless it’s a thong, which would be physically impossible but you get my drift, and get a sense of humor. Have we as a nation become so unfunny and so beholden to pussyfooting (no pun intended) that we’ve lost our collective sense of humor?

Why do women need to be treated like such delicate flowers, anyway? If the fairer sex can dish it out, shouldn’t we be able to take it? Women have scrutinized and made fun of Governor Chris Christie’s weight, former Senator and all-around deuche John Edwards’ hair, and Senator John Kerry’s (alleged) Botox treatments, to name a few, yet we are incapable of handling a little joke about not wanting to see a 62-year-old woman naked? Frankly, who would?

Actually, me. I would. It would be awesome. If Hef or that guy from Hustler were smart they would capitalize on the hubbub and offer Warren a spread (again, no pun intended), or some enterprising genius should sell a calendar for charity called Babes of the Senate, featuring Warren (should she win the general election) and some of the other ladies currently in office. It would look sort of like this or this, except more awesome.

Besides, women don’t have all that much to complain about nowadays in the area of liberation. We’ve largely achieved equality (although a wage gap still exists, it isn’t as wide as typically reported and may never go away fully — read Kay Hymowitz’s piece); in fact, women have begun to surpass men in a number of areas.

Didn’t we fight tooth and nail all these years for women to be able to celebrate acts like this and this with wild abandon and without stigma attached? And now we’re going to kick up our stilettos over an innocent little barb? One more thing: Not to sound like a 10-year-old, but, like, she started it.

Let’s leave the sexist card out of this one, ladies. Frankly, it’s time for us all to man up a little.

Rihanna performs at the Staples Center on June 28, in Los Angeles. (WireImage)

Seriously?

If the rumors are true, Rihanna may be the latest celebrity to have a sex tape leaked.

Hustler claims to be in possession of a video showing Rihanna and J-Cole doing the dirty, RadarOnline reports.

“Hustler are in possession of the Rihanna and J-Cole tape,” a Hustler representative told Radar. “We have seen it and we do not know what we are going to do with it yet.”

RiRi has denied the rumors.

“We don’t believe U, U need more people…AND ofcourse an actual sextape! #slownewsday,” she tweeted.

J-Cole opened for Rihanna’s 2011 Loud tour and she appeared in the music video for his song “Just Can’t Get Enough.”

Pop Sensation Justin Bieber’s recent interview with the Rolling Stone has been getting a lot of attention.

He said about abortion, “I really don’t believe in abortion. It’s like killing a baby?” He also shared his view regarding abortion for victims of rape and said, “Um. Well, I think that’s really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I guess I haven’t been in that position, so I wouldn’t be able to judge that.”

He said about sex, “I don’t think you should have sex with anyone unless you love them. I think you should just wait for the person you’re … in love with.”

The star also talked about the U.S. health care system, “You guys are evil. Canada’s the best country in the world. We go to the doctor and we don’t need to worry about paying him, but here, your whole life, you’re broke because of medical bills. My bodyguard’s baby was premature, and now he has to pay for it. In Canada, if your baby’s premature, he stays in the hospital as long as he needs to, and then you go home.”

Okay . . . I’m the person every woman loves to hate. I’m the Mistress.

Most women don’t want to think about me. They want men to realize their inevitable part in the scheme of things. That is, to honor their role in the relations between the sexes: after a look around among the women available, choose one, put a ring on her finger, and get on with basic plan. Don’t cheat.

As the alternative to this basic plan, or perhaps as an addendum to it, I don’t mind telling you my secrets for romance, in spite of the fact that I’ve rarely been the mistress of married men. Because I have been privy to the confidential confessions of what women have done to men – both as wives and girlfriends – to drive them either to boredom, or completely away, I will write an anatomy of the problem and the solution to a true romantic interlude.

Here is the wild ride of confidential abuse I have been privy to: “She used to pop pimples on my back when we were making love,” “If we had a party, she would show up thirty minutes late (also a time line for nights out) and I would have to entertain or wait,” “I only got a blow job three times in our marriage – and the last time was the night before I was served with our divorce papers,” or, my favorite, “Sex was so Goddamn boring – I just couldn’t crack the code . . .”

This may sound outrageously simplistic. I am just a mistress after all. The reason men love me? I will tell you. Before I go to meet any one of my lovers, I have one thought in my mind: Please let me please him.

Here is the Valentine’s Day formula — and it may not be as simple as it seems. As a mistress, I have always spent serious time thinking about my lover and all the things that really make him happy as the man I know him to be. So can you.

You know the man you’re about to have Valentine’s Day with. Forget the suggestions from magazines and popular self help manuals. Why should you take their advice? You have the inside line to what makes your lover happy. Remember the time he irritated you by being distracted by that football game while you were skimpily clad in a come-and-get-me outfit ready for romance? Guess what? Football turns him on.

Let me backtrack a moment and redefine what Valentine’s Day means to me. It is an opportunity to unselfishly give pleasure to the man in my life who makes me happy. I never think twice about whether it will be worth my while because of two things: I love to see the look on his face when I have guessed that thing he will love correctly. And, just as importantly, when he wants to pay me back, I know exactly what he can do to make me happy. I am a realist – I don’t expect a titan of industry to guess that I would love a trip to Paris. A pair of earrings is fine. I don’t expect a poet to buy me a pair of Manolo Blahniks. Poets are good for written tributes I will have in my scrap-book forever. I also don’t expect to be recompensed for the effort I put into Valentine’s Day (which they may have forgotten – or may have to postpone for a day, because they are one of a number of my men) to be repaid on the spot. I am always confident that “what goes around, comes around.”

Between the sheets, there is one rule of thumb: a man is never really happy unless he feels that when he has made love to a woman, he has made her happy. Forget this at your peril. On Valentine’s night do whatever you must to ensure that you, too, are going to enjoy the touch of the man you’ve chosen. Don’t let him get too drunk. Don’t forget to let him know that he’s better than anyone else at doing those little things he does to turn you on. Praise inspires — and men have been created to please us. Just reinforce the plan!

Ladies, what I’m saying is this: If he’s worth it, let Valentine’s Day be an opportunity to love him for who he is. Gear your conversation to the things that interest him. Give yourself over to those sexual pleasures that tantalize his taste as much as your own – after all, it’s only one night! If you love him, wouldn’t you want to spoil him once a year? Don’t worry about getting good value out of the effort you put into what you give. You’ll get it – I guarantee.

I assume I am writing to women who are selfish enough to want good value from every relationship they put their time into. I also assume that when you women go out to find men worthy of your time, you know what you want and go after it romantically with a “no holds barred” attitude

. . . and isn’t that what men love about you?

Happy Valentines Day!

Whether you’re still searching for The One or you think you’ve found him or her, it’s probably time to read “The Rules of Love” by Richard Templar. Why? Because life is not a chick flick, and relationships can be difficult! Maybe his nagging mom doesn’t think you’re “good enough,” maybe his obsession with video games makes you want to throw his Wii out the window, or maybe your stressful work life has made your sex life fizzle. No matter your romance status, Templar’s book of 100 rules of love can help you strengthen all of your relationships (yes, there is hope for you and his mom) and could even help you find The One.

A few of Templar’s rules for finding love

• Be yourself.
• Certain people are off limits (you know who they are).
• You can’t change people.
• Don’t play games.
• You can’t make someone love you.
• Don’t tar new partners with old brushes.
• Relationships aren’t about sex.
• You’ll know them when you meet them.

A few of Templar’s rules for relationships

• Every problem is a shared problem.
• Put each other first.
• Be nice.
• Your partner is more important than your kids.
• Make time for romance.
• Treat your partner better than your best friend.
• Accept the differences; embrace what you have in common.
• Once an argument is over, let it lie.

Templar is the author of the bestselling Rules series, including “The Rules of Life,” “The Rules of Work” and “The Rules of Money.” To purchase or get more information about “The Rules of Love,” go here.

Stumbling upon a slew of articles divulging the latest list of aphrodisiacal foods around Valentine’s Day is no big surprise. Lists range from foods containing ingredients that are thought to work within our bodies to induce a sexual reaction to foods that can simply arouse the five senses. All of the talk about aphrodisiacs that surfaces with a vengeance during this time of year illuminates a most obvious fact of life: human beings hunger to know more about anything and everything that might possibly feed their sexual fires. But what about those foods that do just the opposite? Although not scientifically proven, it won’t hurt to avoid at all costs the evil, sexual desire-killing twin of the aphrodisiac on Valentine’s Day: the anti-aphrodisiac.

(Media Credit/Julius Schorzman via Wikimedia Commons)

Caffeinated Beverages. According to Caring Medical & Rehabilitation Services, drinking too many caffeinated beverages, such as soda and coffee, can lower your sex drive by causing adrenal fatigue. If your adrenal gland does not produce enough hormones, you can suffer from both decreased desire for sex and inadequate energy to perform.

Cilantro. Asian monks eat cilantro in order to control their sex drives, claims Sam Greenspan of 11Points.com in “11 Foods That Just Might Kill Your Sex Drive.” But in the Middle Ages, people believed that cilantro held the power to boost the sex drive, and thus used it as a main ingredient in their love potions. So is cilantro an aphrodisiac or an anti-aphrodisiac? You decide.

Corn Flakes. John Harvey Kellogg, the creator of Corn Flakes, believed that sex and masturbation were at the root of most health problems, Greenspan says. Kellogg whipped up the originally sugarless cereal under the impression that a bland breakfast could curb sexual urges throughout the day.

Gin & Tonic. While tonic’s main ingredient, quinine, has been associated with lowering testosterone levels, according to Dr. Matthew Karlovsky in his EmpowHER.com post “Can Certain Foods Kill Your Sex Drive?”, it is well known that alcohol of any variety has been linked to hindered sexual performance if consumed in excess. Gordon Attard of PimpThatFood.com suggests that because alcohol “inhibits inhibition itself,” perhaps this one should be counted as neutral.

Graham Crackers. Greenspan says that like Corn Flakes, Graham Crackers were the creation of a man who despised the uncontrollable sex drives of his contemporaries. Reverend Sylvester Graham, a Presbyterian minister in 1820s New Jersey, believed that a meat-rich diet lead to sexual promiscuity. In creating this bland cracker, Graham had hoped to suppress the sex drives of those around him.

Granola. James Caleb Jackson created the first batch of this crunchy cereal in the 1860s and called it “granula,” says Greenspan. Soon after, Kellogg stole the recipe and began selling it as his own. After being sued, Kellogg started to market his product as “granola.” (I think we know who came out on top in this battle). Like Kellogg’s Corn Flakes and Graham’s Graham Crackers, Jackson created this cereal in order to curb sex drives with the power of bland, tasteless food.

Energy Drinks. Like caffeinated beverages, energy drinks provide consumers with a forceful boost of energy followed by an even greater crash. David Zinczenko, editor-in-chief of “Men’s Health” and co-author of national bestseller “Eat This, Not That!” says in his article “Best and Worst Foods for Your Libido” that high sugar diets (and energy drinks contain a lot of sugar) can lead to temporarily lowered testosterone, and consequently a temporarily lowered sex drive.

(Media Credit/Tammy Green via Flickr)

Soy. According to Dr. Karlovsky, the phytoestrogens found in soy can disrupt the ratio of testosterone and estrogen, and testosterone is the driving force behind the libido for both sexes.

Mints. Although most look to mint-flavored candies and gum as secret weapons for freshening breath, eating too many mints could actually be bad for your libido, according to a study conducted by Suleyman Demirel University Medical School in Turkey, which found decreased levels of testosterone in rats that had consumed peppermint tea.

Fast Food. Just as plaque build-up from unhealthy fats, such as saturated and hydrogenated fats, found in fast food and fried food can lead to cardiovascular problems, it can also build up in the vessels of the penis, decreasing blood circulation and making getting an erection difficult despite how much you might want to get it on, according to Caring Medical & Rehabilitation Services.

(Media Credit/Heavybluesman via Wikimedia Commons)

Tomatoes. While tomatoes do indeed have their nutritional perks, Zinczenko suggests that the lycopene and phytofluene in these fruits can also decrease testosterone levels, and thus hinder one’s sex drive.

White Chocolate. While white chocolate isn’t exactly an anti-aphrodisiac per se, it’s interesting to note the difference between the aphrodisiacal quality of dark chocolate and the total lack thereof when it comes to white. According to Zinczenko, the heightened skin sensitivity and increase in serotonin that can result from eating dark chocolate doesn’t occur at all from consuming white chocolate. This is because white chocolate doesn’t actually contain any cocoa, the main ingredient in dark chocolate that produces those feel-good sensations.

For years, lovers have given generic and boring gifts to their significant others on Valentine’s Day.  Collections of drugstore chocolates, cheap perfumes and colognes and crappy “romantic” candles that are said to set the mood have become a rut that gift givers turn to.

In the spirit of the new year, we at Blast suggest that a new standard be set for Valentine’s Day gifts. Boston establishments such as Beacon Hill Chocolates, Condom World, Sweet & Nasty and LUSH Cosmetics raise the bar for Valentine’s Day with their unique, fun gifts that put a spin on traditional choices.

Beacon Hill Chocolates

91 Charles St.
617-725-1900
www.beaconhillchocolates.com

Forget that heart-shaped box of cheap chocolates! On the brick streets of Beacon Hill lies aptly named Beacon Hill Chocolates, a gourmet chocolate store that prides itself in its unique keepsake gift boxes and artisan chocolates.

The company, which will be celebrating its fifth birthday this April, imports rich chocolates from chocolatiers in Belgium, France and a local business in Natick, Mass., called Cocoa Pod.

Rebecca Novak, the manager of the store, said that the big seller for Valentine’s Day this year will be the handcrafted keepsake boxes. Chocolates for Valentine’s Day may not be original, but with these decorative decoupage-style boxes designed with vintage postcards, lithographs, illustrations and photographs, customers can mix and match any type of chocolate truffles they want.

“It’s personalized,” Novak said. “You can’t find the boxes anywhere else.”

Out of the hundreds of artfully crafted truffles and painted hearts, Novak personally recommends the heart-shaped Cognac Caramels or the Brownie Bite Truffles. Other special items to look out for include the Caramel Sushi, Salted Caramel Fudge and the over-sized Chocolate Conversation Hearts.

It’s advisable to place custom orders a week prior to Valentine’s Day, especially for the fresh chocolate-covered strawberries that will be available this year.

Condom World

332 Newbury St.
617-267-7233
www.condomworldboston.com

Upon entering Condom World, the popular X-rated store on Newbury Street, the first thing that stands out is a swaying clock designed to look like two cows “doing the nasty.”

Mike Morrison, the store’s manager, thinks that couple-related products will be the best sellers this year for Valentine’s Day.

“Love is in the air and we’re a sex shop,” Morrison said.

Rather than look at items that are separate for men and women, Morrison motions towards products that couples can use together. Items such as vibrating rings, edible body lotion and lube, dirty dice, books of “coupons” that merit sexy activities such as “one hot bath together,” and body paint pens allow for shared Valentine’s Day gifts.

Various other items around the store include Kama Sutra books, naughty costumes and masturbation items for those who are celebrating the holiday alone.

The wall-length stretch of vibrators and dildos may be intimidating at first glance, but the fun, hands-on nature of Condom World gifts goes unmatched for Valentine’s Day.

Sweet & Nasty

90 Massachusetts Ave., # 90A
617-266-7171
www.sweet-n-nasty.com

Looking for a sweet treat besides the usual box of chocolates? Take the train to Hynes Convention Center and buy a couple of chocolate penis pops from Sweet & Nasty erotic bakery.

Niki Novak, the owner of Sweet & Nasty, dove into the erotic bakery business in October of 1981 and has been going strong for 30 years.

When visiting her sister in New York, Novak had her first penis cake experience and it was about as appetizing as corrugated cardboard.  This served as a springboard for Novak to open her own erotic bakery with naughty goods that tasted great.

All the big sellers for Valentine’s Day are edible, such as G-strings, booby tassels, handcuffs and anatomically correct body parts.

“It combines chocolate, sex and love,” Novak said, describing the essence of her work.

The light-hearted humor behind the Valentine’s Day gifts from Sweet & Nasty replaces the typical serious romance theme of the holiday. Lovers may not wish to propose to their significant others with a chocolate mold of two pigs “making bacon,” but it’s items like these that show that some thought was put into the gifts.

Novak says it’s typical to hear customers say, “This would be perfect for so and so” or, “Oh my God, this is so gross.”  She explained that the most disgusted customers end up making the final purchases.

Anyone who wants some Buxom Bettys or Bite-Sized Tit Pops should place orders sooner than later.  Two to three days prior to Valentine’s Day at Sweet & Nasty can only be described as a mob scene.

LUSH Cosmetics

166 Newbury St.
617-375-5874
www.lushusa.com/shop

Perfume and cologne are one of the many generic “go-to” gifts for Valentine’s Day.  If anyone is considering the gift of scent, the one store on Newbury Street that you can smell from a block away is calling out to lovers this year.

LUSH Cosmetics is the candy land of homemade bath bombs, soaps and all that smells wonderful.

Sarah Hewitt, the manager of the Newbury Street location, says that one of the best sellers for Valentine’s Day is the Sex Bomb bath bombs.

“Sex Bomb is the ultimate sensual bath bomb,” Hewitt said.

Items such as Sex Bomb and the limited edition Valentine’s Day products are better than ordinary perfumes because they are made of natural aphrodisiacs that set the mood for the holiday.

Some of the limited edition bubble bars, bath bombs and soaps that are sure to sell out quickly are Magic Mushroom, The Ex Factor, Frog Prince and Love Birds.

Gifts from LUSH can range anywhere from $4 to $200.

Popular scents that Hewitt recommends are vanilla, chocolate, rose and jasmine.  These scents can be found in many of the massage bars, and not only do they smell good, but they lend themselves to romantic back rubs.

LUSH’s soaps and unique fragrances can replace the cheap cologne gift as well with scents like Demon in the Dark, Ice Blue, Sea Vegetable and Karma.  The masculine scents smell lovely without being too overpowering.

If you find yourself single and sad, grab a Blackberry bath bomb and spend the holiday smelling bergamot, a natural anti-depressant.

MTV’s new drama “Skins” premiered last night, based off of the controversial UK hit with the same title. Like the name states, the show is filled with the flesh of the hedonistic teenagers it follows. These trucker-mouthed teens are drugged up booze hounds, that are addicted to sex, with major emotional issues. Basically, they are the more depressed version of “Jersey Shore.”

The first episode revolves around Tony (James Newman) on a quest to make sure his friend Stanley (Daniel Flaherty) finally loses his virginity one night. The way to achieve that goal is to get a girl so drunk that she won’t even care it’s Stanley she is having sex with. I mean, how else would you lose your virginity? The night ends in fist fights, excessive pill popping and a car at the bottom of a river. Just a typical night in the lives of American teens, my friends.

The show is purposely trying to be every parent’s worst nightmare, and it succeeds. While all the drugs, alcohol and sex may shock those living under a culture rock, most realize that teens usually experiment with these factors and sometimes even indulge. What is shocking is the lack of remorse or fear of the consequences these teens have. Their lives center around the next time they get laid or score some weed, and school just happens to be a back drop.

This show is so desperately trying to be edgy and raw that it comes off like it’s trying too hard. It was as if the writers of the show decided to put all the taboo activities teenagers are not suppose to partake in and see what happens. What happens is you get a bunch of hormonal teenagers with exaggerated issues no one cares about.

What made the UK version a hit was not the shocking behavior but how relatable the characters were. This is what is severely lacking from the MTV one. The show tries but fails to capture the essence of what it is like being a teen. While it is totally believable for teens to be sex crazed with serve mental issues, the teens that were scantily dressed on the TV were not believable. “Skins” is the over dramatic Hollywood version of what it is like to be a teen.

At one point when Stanley thinks he is going to get his cherry popped by the sexually alluring Michelle he says “I am going to park my Chevy in Michelle’s garage?” Now, I will admit that it has been awhile since I have been in high school but who the hell talks like that? No one, that’s who.

While “Skins” is filled plenty of shock and awe moments that will initially grab a viewer’s attentions, it lacks the substance to hold it.

Sure, Marge and Homer are in love; we’ve all seen them rolling around under the sheets on “The Simpsons,” but we’ve been spared the dirty details — until now.

Thanks to Full Spread Entertainment, you can watch your favorite citizens of Springfield doing the deed and eating each other’s…shorts. Watch Marge, Homer, Cookie Kwan, Moe, McBain and Barney have the yellowest sex you’ve ever seen. In the tape, shot by Homer on Flanders’ video camera, Marge lets her tall blue hair down and channels her inner sex goddess — it’s the kinkiest thing she’s done since she posed for “Playboy.”

“I couldn’t believe my eyes when I watched it,” said Full Spread Entertainment’s Lee Roy Myers. “Everyone in the movie is famous, naked, thrusting, sexy, and yellow. So yellow.”

“Clearly it is the real deal,” adds Full Spread Entertainment’s Dr. Philgood. “If it wasn’t, why would they all be so yellow?”

Want more proof that it’s the real deal? You can count on Flanders popping in to say, “Howdy doodly!”

For free downloads and behind-the-scenes extras, go to www.simpsonsporno.org. To order a copy of the film, go here.

According to a November 2009 cable from the American Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, put online by Wikileaks on Tuesday, the elite young people there “party like the rest of the world.”

“Behind the facade of Wahabi conservatism in the streets, the underground nightlife for Jeddah’s elite youth is thriving and throbbing. The full range of worldly temptations and vices are available — alcohol, drugs, sex — but strictly behind closed doors. This freedom to indulge carnal pursuits is possible merely because the religious police keep their distance when parties include the presence or patronage of a Saudi royal and his circle of loyal attendants…”

Jeddah is on the coast of the Red Sea and is the major urban center of western Saudi Arabia. It is the largest port on the Red Sea and second largest city in Saudi Arabia. The population is about 3.4 million.

The party scene has recently been pushed further underground due to a recent increase in religious conservatism, the cable reads.

On Halloween 2009, Consulate employees attended a party with more than 150 young Saudis, mostly in their 20s and 30s, at a house of a Saudi prince.

“…the scene resembled a nightclub anywhere outside the Kingdom: plentiful alcohol, young couples dancing, a DJ at the turntables, and everyone in costume. Funding for the party came from a corporate sponsor, XXXXXXa U.S.-based energy-drink company as well as from the princely host himself,” the cable reads.

The party was under a strict guest list, and Saudi religious police, the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, were nowhere to be found.

Young people try to throw these kinds of parties at the house of a Saudi prince or elsewhere as long as a prince attends. There are more than 10,000 Saudi princes, so finding one is not difficult.

The cable also says that drugs and prostitutes were readily available.

Alcohol, though strictly prohibited by Saudi law and custom, was plentiful at the party’s well-stocked bar, well-patronized by Halloween revellers. (SIC) The hired Filipino bartenders served a cocktail punch using “sadiqi,” a locally-made “moonshine.” While top-shelf liquor bottles were on display throughout the bar area, the original contents were reportedly already consumed and replaced by sadiqi. On the black market, a bottle of Smirnoff can cost 1,500 riyals when available, compared to 100 riyals for the locally-made vodka. It was also learned through word-of-mouth that a number of the guests were in fact “working girls,” not uncommon for such parties. Additionally, though not witnessed directly at this event, cocaine and hashish use is common in these social circles and has been seen on other occasions.

“Saudi youth get to enjoy relative social freedom and indulge fleshly pursuits, but only behind closed doors — and only the rich,” the cable reads toward the bottom.

Joe, Kailyn and Isaac at MTV's "16 and Pregnant" Season 2 reunion (Media Credit/Scott Gries via MTV.com)

When Jamie Lynn Spears, then 16, and Bristol Palin, then 17, announced their pregnancies, magazines rushed to put their young faces on their covers, and TV news shows were quick to jump into the discussion. Turn on the TV and chances are you’ll catch a glimpse of reality shows like MTV’s “Teen Mom” and “16 and Pregnant” or the true-story-based Lifetime drama “The Pregnancy Pact.” Teen moms and dads are everywhere – even getting spreads in “Playgirl” if you’re Levi Johnston, who became a dad at 18.

But is all this media attention sending the message that it’s “cool” to be a teen parent? Or is it instead highlighting the difficulties surrounding parenthood? New research says it’s the latter.

According to a poll of adolescents ages 12 to 19 commissioned by The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 79 percent of girls and 67 percent of boys “agree that when a TV show or character they like deals with teen pregnancy, it makes them think more about their own risk of getting pregnant or causing a pregnancy and how to avoid it.”

A nationwide telephone poll of 1,008 adolescents conducted by Social Science Research Solutions found similar statistics. Eighty-two percent of the adolescents polled who have seen “16 and Pregnant” think that the show helps them to not only understand the challenges of teen pregnancy and parenthood, but also how to avoid it. To teens’ credit, a recent study by Indiana University found that teens are in fact using protection more often than older generations.

Additionally, it seems that this media attention may be opening a doorway for parent-teen conversation. Seventy-six of the adolescents polled said that seeing sex, love, and relationships in the media can be a good way to begin conversations about sex with parents, and 48 percent said that they have actually done so because of the media’s attention to the topics.

In a separate study of 162 young people ages 10 to 19 conducted by The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy and the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, 93 percent of those who watched and discussed several episodes of “16 and Pregnant” said that the show helped them learn that teen parenthood is “harder than they imagined.”

Despite the fact that national teen pregnancy rates recently rose for the first time in over a decade, these findings support the idea that the media may not necessarily be a negative influence on teen behavior.

Mila Kunis spoke about her graphic love scene with “Black Swan” co-star Natalie Portman which caused a rumor that tequila might have been a huge help for them to film the sex scene.

According to People, she said, “There was no tequila! Not sure where that rumor came from, but it’s false. I don’t think we could have done that scene if we were intoxicated.”

She continues, “They’re never comfortable, same-sex, opposite-sex, it’s never comfortable.”

Both actresses underwent rigorous ballet training and body transformations for the film. As a result, Kunis lost 20 lbs.

And you thought seeing big-boobed lifeguards running in slow motion on the beach was hot! Hustler Video’s new DVD release, “This Ain’t Baywatch XXX,” will show you a whole lot more than bikini-clad bodies. Your favorite characters from the TV show, including CJ (Gina Lynn), Mitch (Otto Bauer), and April (Breanne Benson), will be taking it all off for some sandy sex on the beach.

“It is kind of surprising that with all the parody films out there, no one thought to do this one,” said Rob Smith, director of operations for Hustler Video. “But then again, considering how sexually charged the original show was anyway, maybe everyone else figured that people were fine jerking off to the original. But not Hustler. We’re in the business for taking things to the next level.”

If the “next level” means plot twists such as the lifeguards rescuing a “drowning” couple from the waves only to discover that they were just fooling around, count us in!

Lexi Belle, who plays the newlywed whose oral sex skills were interrupted by those pesky lifeguards, said of her role in the movie, “Honestly, I don’t know what was better: Getting to hang out at the beach all day for work, or getting to have sex all day for work? This was definitely one of the better sets I’ve been on in a long time. I mean, who doesn’t like to hear when they show up for work, ‘Put on this swimsuit and go give Bill a BJ in the ocean. Okay, now go take off your clothes and eff your brains out.’ I love my job!”

Oh Lexi, we love your job, too!

A recent study conducted by Indiana University discovered that young American teenagers use condoms more frequently than any other age group in the country.

The National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior, which was published on Oct. 1 in “The Journal of Sexual Medicine,” evaluated the sexual experiences and condom use of 5,865 American men and women between the ages of 14 and 94.

When asked how often condoms were used during the last 10 times they had vaginal intercourse, males aged 14 to 17  reported using them 79.1 percent of the time, with females in that age group reporting that they were used 58.1 percent of the time. As the subjects’ ages increased, their usage of condoms consistently decreased, with subjects 61 and older using them less than 8 percent of the time.

Images courtesy of Indiana University

The study also concluded that condoms are used in 1 in 4 acts of vaginal intercourse, and are used twice as often during “casual” sex than during sex between partners in a relationship. It also found that black and Hispanic Americans use condoms more often than any other racial groups.

“These data, when compared to other studies in the recent past, suggest that although condom use has increased among some groups, efforts to promote the use of condoms to sexually active individuals should remain a public health priority,” said Michael Reece, director of Indiana University’s Center for Sexual Health Promotion.

A Georgia woman is suing TV personality and model Tyra Banks for $3 million after she said her 15-year-old daughter appeared without her permission on an episode of Banks’ talk show about teen sex addicts.

According to the Associated Press, in a lawsuit filed October 8 in federal court in Atlanta, Beverly McClendon claims the show contacted the teen on her cell phone after she responded to a request on the show’s website seeking “sex addicts.” The girl was then picked up from her home in Georgia in a limo and flown to New York, where she was put up in a hotel, all without her mother’s knowledge.

McClendon filed a missing person report with local police when she realized her daughter was gone. The teen has never been diagnosed as a sex addict.

The source reports that the lawsuit also names Warner Brothers Entertainment and the executive producers of the show as defendants.

The lawsuit seeks a jury trial and asks for $1 million in compensatory damages and $2 million in punitive damages. It also asks the court to bar the episode from ever being aired again on television or online.

The $3 million lawsuit claims that the show violated McClendon’s right to privacy by putting her daughter, who was a minor, on television without McClendon’s permission.

In addition, the lawsuit claims negligence, saying the teen was paid for her appearance but that the show didn’t get permission from the labor commissioner to employ her and didn’t get McClendon’s permission before paying the girl to fly to New York, stay in a hotel alone and appear on the show.

As porn movies continue to grow in budget and blur the line between controversy and mainstream, Lupe Fuentes is “super.”

The star of the latest big-budget sex flick, “Super Pooosey,” the 23-year-old Colombian/Spanish starlet portrays a feisty, tough good-bad-girl in a mainstream move for this hardcore adult star.

The trailer for “Super Pooosey” was announced on the Howard Stern show and already has tens of thousands of views.

“People are not sure what they are seeing; is it porn? Is it a mainstream movie? When everyone finds out what this really is, I think they are going to be very surprised,” said male porn star Evan Seinfeld, who is known, himself, for playing biker gang leader Jaz Hoyt in the HBO prison drama “Oz.” “Lupe is a superstar who transcends mainstream to hardcore.”

But perhaps most noteworthy about this tiny bag of tricks is how far she was willing to go for one of her fans. Last year, a man named Carlos Timmeron was traveling from Venezuela to Puerto Rico with a Lupe Fuentes DVD in his luggage. American federal authorities arrested him in San Juan on suspicion of child porn possession, because Fuentes is so small (4’9″) and looks so young. The man spent several months in jail awaiting trial, but when Fuentes found out, she flew to San Juan, with a lawyer, and testified that she was over 18 when the film was made, springing Timmeron and possibly saving him from decades in jail.

Fuentes sat down for a chat with Blast last week.

BLAST: Where and how did you get your start in the business? We heard you stared performing abroad?

LUPE FUENTES: I started in the business in Spain when I was 18. I was doing mainstream modeling and artistic nudes. I had a boyfriend who was a director, and I was offered a lto of money to shoot some hardcore porn — a lot of money! My teen site was blowing up on the web, and I was an instant success.

BLAST: What is the porn industry like in Spain?

LF: The industry in Spain is realy small. You cannot do much to become a big star in Spain. Most of the business as we know it is in the USA, mainly in L.A., where I live now.

BLAST: Tell us a bit about your personal life.

LF: When I’m not on camera shooting porn, I am really a kind of traditional teenybopper. (laughs) I live in L.A., spend a lot of time working on my site and chatting live for ilovelupe.com my official website. Also I do a lot of press and interviews, on Howard Stern, in magazines etc. I shoot for wicked pictures and of course my own production company, ilovelupe.

BLAST: August 2009. San Juan. Tell us the story.

LF: A man named Carols Timmeron was arrested when he came into the country from Venezuela with a bootleg video from my website, and the customs police thought it was child pornography. He spent nine months in jail, and his lawyer got him out on house arrest. The public defender contacted me and said the guy was a big fan and was in jail because the court thinks I am underage.

I flew down to San Juan and testified in the federal court room. All the news people were there. The prosecutors freaked out, because they usually win all their cases down there. I verified that I was 18 when I made the videos. He was set free, and we all walked out together. It was nice to help a fan. I love my fans.

BLAST: We hear you’re a classically trained ballet dancer. How does one go from “Swan Lake” to having anal sex on camera?

LF: I grew up doing ballet and synchronized swimming in Spain. Of course, modeling too and dancing at the parties, but I was always very sexual. The first time I saw a porn video, I was with a group of friends, and I was about 15. I watched how everyone was so turned on, I was like “I want to do that. I want people to watch me fuck!”

BLAST: Tell us about “Super Pooosey,” your latest film.

LF: “Super Pooosey” is my first mainstream movie that I am staring in and producing also. I love these kinda movies, in between classic Russ Meyer and modern “Grindhouse,” with some retro sexy! I love acting and modeling. We have 70 thousand views of our trailer on YouTube in just a few days. It is really exciting for me

BLAST: Do you enjoy the acting and “mainstream” elements of the film? You’ve done FHM magazine and Howard Stern — Do you want to do more mainstream work?

LF: I love porn. I love mainstream. I love to work and be busy in general. I just shot with Terry Richardson last week, and I am constantly trying to branch out and do more different and exciting things.

Yabba dabba…do her hard? You’ll never look at one of your favorite childhood cartoons the same again. In honor of “The Flintstones’” 50th birthday, adult film studio New Sensations is releasing a porn parody, giving Bam-Bam’s big club a whole new meaning.

Brought to you by the masterminds behind the porn parodies of “The Office,” “Scrubs,” and “Seinfeld,” “The Flintstones: An XXX Parody” will feature the various “talents” of stars Hillary Scott as Wilma, Brooke Lee Adams as Betty, Anthony Rosano as Barney, and Peter O’Tool as Fred (no, not that Peter O’Toole).

Director Will Ryder said of the film, which will be released on DVD Oct. 25, “We have brought everyone’s favorite cartoon cavemen to life and allowed them to indulge in their prehistoric, carnal lust for sex. After 50 years of abstinence, you know Fred and Barney are dying to finally get with their wives, or anyone else wearing a fur skirt.”

You can be sure that the movie will feature a whole lot of prehistoric bed-rocking in an authentic Bedrock—the set of the Flintstones’ living room was recreated so it’ll look just like it does in your innocent childhood memories of the cartoon. Also replicated? Fred’s awesome car.

The plot’s as thick as any other porn flick’s — you know, Fred suspects Wilma’s cheating, but she’s really planning a surprise birthday party for him. Oh, and Pebbles and Bam-Bam aren’t the toddlers you remember, because that would just be creepy (and illegal!). Instead, they’re older and ready to explore their sexuality…and each other.

“ooo” boutique wants you to do it with style — literally. The Los Angeles-based company has launched FDA-approved condoms with stylish, tongue-in-cheek packaging that will make you the most fashionable sexpot in town.

Three different types of condoms — ultra thins dubbed feel me, “pleasure-shaped” rubbers called rock me, and flavored condoms called savor me — are available in six varieties of packaging. Photographs of an elevator, a pile of hay, and other places to get it on are featured on the take me packaging; Kung Fu Sutra features naughty pen-and-ink art; work from up-and-coming artists is featured on art of lust; and the try me set will give you ideas when you’re bored with yawn-inducing missionary. Less exciting but equally as fashionable are the handy tryst boxes, which are complete with lusty words of longing, and the passion packs, which look like chic, romantic goody bags complete with silver ribbons.

Adam Glickman, president and CEO of Condomania, an “ooo” boutique partner, said that these condoms “underscore safer sex, while never taking an eye off the importance of having fun. They make a bold, stylish statement…and should be a part of every young person’s wardrobe.”

Retail prices for “ooo” boutique condoms range from $1.99 for singles to $24.95 for gift sets. For more information, visit www.oooboutique.com.

Great and noble is the history of films about horny teenage boys. From the moment Dan Monahan spied on Kim Cattrall in “Porky’s,” Hollywood has luxuriated in the epic journey young, nerdy heterosexual men take to finally tap that ass. “American Pie” is arguably the masterwork of the genre, making the phrase “One time, at band camp…” a joke for the ages, and ensuring Eugene Levy never has a serious career.

“The Virginity Hit” is the latest entry into the genre, and marketing itself as the “American Pie” for the Youtube generation. It follow the travails of Matt (Matt Bennett) the last boy in his group of friends to lose his virginity and who’s left by his girlfriend after his adoptive brother convinces him to tape himself attempting to have sex.

Ok, guys. I am really, really trying not to be called a sour, humorless feminazi. I am a feminist, and as such I see the real value in movies reflecting the teenage male psyche. They can be a goldmine of insight not just into the minds of men, but our own skewed cultural view of sexuality. Americans tend to think of sex the way teenage boys do- as something both to be feared and to be joked about, something dangerous but also brimming with mystery and possibility.

They can also be pretty damn funny.

But you have to have a heart and a soul to be able to navigate the shark-infested waters of teen sex romps, and unfortunately “Virginity Hit” has neither. It’s a mean-spirited little piece of work, using a pretension of “social commentary as an excuse to show a bunch of boys committing felonies by taping an underage couple having sex for the first time, and, in one scene, breaking into a teenage girl’s bedroom.

Because, you know, boys will be boys.

The cast is a bunch of dead-eyed guys who look pretty damn pleased with their own cleverness, and a rotating band of mindless girls who are little more than a series of holes to be conquered. The only likable person in the movie has to be porn star Sunny Leone, who gives a sweet, and very funny cameo as the porn star with a heart of gold. Leone is obviously the most intelligent, the most mature and the most sympathetic of this group of miscreants, a rare ray of sunshine (pun not intended) in a gloomy, depressing view of human sexuality in the 21st century.

I’ve been thinking a lot about voyeurism after seeing this movie. After all, most of the movie is about the fact that Matt’s life is being documented, posted and commented on. It’s a very different world from when Pee-Wee poked a hole in the wall at Porky’s, and its admirable that “Virginity Hit” wanted to address that. I just wish there’d been a little more joy in it. Directors Huck Botko and Andrew Gurland see nothing but humiliation, fear and objectification in losing one’s virginity. God knows that’s part of the experience. But there’s happiness too, and mystery, and even a little fun if you’re very lucky.

Ask Sunny Leone about it. She apparently was the only one who gets it.

Former bodyguard, Fernando Flores, was hired by Britney Spears in February 2010 to work at her home in Calabasas, Calif . He has accused Britney Spears of sexual harassment, saying she repeatedly exposed herself to him and made unwanted sexual come-ons.

He also says Britney abused her two young sons, hitting them with a belt and feeding them crab meat.

But the singer posted a statement on her web site on Thursday, saying authorities looked into Flores’ claims but found no reason to act.

According to her statement, "This lawsuit is another unfortunate situation where someone is trying to take advantage of the Spears family and make a name for himself. The Department of Children and Family Services conducted a proper investigation surrounding Mr. Flores’ accusations and have closed the case without further action."

Although a specific dollar amount isn’t named in the suit, Flores is seeking damages based around the sexual harassment incidents and for "intentional infliction of emotional distress."

According to Billboard, Spears’ lawyer declined to comment on the lawsuit.

There’s no denying it: There are many women, and maybe even some men, who’d love to give Tiger Woods and Jesse James a piece of their minds. How could a family man like Tiger ruin his marriage? How could Jesse James cheat on Sandra Bullock with tattooed skanks? Both stars are blaming sex addiction for their infidelity. But is it that simple? Are they really sex addicts or are they chronic cheaters who are using it as an excuse? While it’s controversial in medical circles, some experts do believe that sex addiction is real. Although the American Psychiatric Association does not include sex addiction in its handbook, the Mayo Clinic asserts that 3 to 6 percent of American adults are addicted to sex, according to CNN.

Diana Kirschner, Ph.D., author of “Love in 90 Days: The Essential Guide to Finding Your Own True Love,” says sex addiction is a real disorder that is similar to alcohol or drug addiction. She explains that a love of sex crosses the line into an addiction when “the person repeatedly manages their stress, emotional disturbance, suffering, or other problems by turning to a sexual outlet to diminish their upset.” Specifically, she says that the six fundamental signs of sex addiction are the following:

1. Engaging in sexual behavior frequently, to a greater extent, or for longer than the person intended.
2. Having difficulty stopping or controlling the sexual behavior.
3. Spending a large amount of time thinking about, procuring, acting out, or recovering from the sexual behavior.
4. Sexual addiction interferes with current relationships, work and/or financial responsibilities.
5. A sex addict needs to do more of the sexual behaviors over time to gain satisfaction.
6. If not engaging in the sexual behavior, the addict feels anxious, distressed, depressed or angry.

Infidelity expert Ruth Houston, author of “Is He Cheating on You? 829 Telltale Signs," agrees with Kirschner. “Sex addiction is real,” she says, “but it’s not as common as cheating men would like you to think it is. After the fact, many cheating men use it as an excuse for their infidelity or as a way to justify their behavior.”

So are Tiger Woods and Jesse James really sex addicts? Houston has her own theories.

“I believe that Tiger Woods is a sex addict and that Jesse James is not,” Houston says. “The women Tiger got involved with were easily within his reach; he didn’t go out searching for them. They were strippers, night club hostesses, all people he came into contact with while out eating or while out on the town. Jesse went out searching for a specific type of woman; he knew what he was doing, and it was contrived on his part.”

Houston further explains that “Sex addiction means taking risks that a ‘normal’ person wouldn’t take. Look at all the risks Tiger took–he didn’t even bother to use protection, and he had all these incriminating text messages and voice mails. He didn’t take the normal precautions cheating men would take. He was going hog wild! He’s an intelligent man who should know better, but his sex addiction was overcoming his common sense. The sheer number of women he slept with is outrageous. He was most likely engaged in this type of behavior before his marriage, and he never stopped.”

So is it possible to forgive a sex addict for their destructive behavior?

“It’s possible to forgive only if the addict gets help,” Houston says. “It’s a good idea to try to make the relationship work. There’s no ‘one size fits all’ when dealing with infidelity. Every woman needs to think for herself.”

Girlfriends and wives of cheaters often have “flashbacks,” which is the most difficult part of forgiving a cheater, says Houston. For example, when a cheater is on his cell phone, his wife wonders who he’s speaking to; when he’s away, she wonders what he’s doing. And it’s not so easy to forgive when mistresses keep popping up on magazine covers and TV shows spilling the details of perverted texts sent by the cheater.

As for Jesse and Tiger, they have both been kicked to the curb, as both of their marriages are ending in divorce. Houston blames the media in part for the couples’ inability to reconcile.

“Because of the media, their marriage problems were in their faces. It’s hard to put issues behind you when the media won’t let it happen,” she says. “If their marriage issues had not been public, these two couples may have been able to overcome this.”

There is no lap dancing allowed in Boston.

Scratch that. A dancer can dance near someone’s lap, but they can’t make contact with the patron, and the patron may not touch the dancer.

Someone forgot to tell that to an overeager dancer at the Glass Slipper Gentleman’s Club, police said.

On May 9, Boston Police detectives were conducting an inspection of the glass slipper when they observed one of the female dancers getting a little too close to a patron in a third floor lounge at the club.

The dancer, who was naked except for a g-string, was performing a lap dance on a male club patron and making physical contact with him.

That’s a no-no according to city licensing rules.

The detectives filed a report, and the city issued a licensed premise violation. The club will probably receive a warning, officials said.

If you feel as if the intimacy in your relationship needs a boost, this may be a solution for you. Author Lisa Pankau wrote Beyond Seduction, Loving Without Limits. Pankau says there are five types of intimacy that can be developed to create a stronger bond between couples that can last a lifetime.

According to Pankau, vulnerability is the best way to create intimacy.

"Vulnerability and intimacy are two words that create stress for most people, especially men," said Pankau. "But true love comes out of intimacy and to experience intimacy on deeper and more profound levels, one must experience vulnerability."

So what exactly are the five types of intimacy? Keep reading.

Intellectual intimacy is the process of having conversations with your partner. It sounds simple enough, but you should share your life aspirations and make plans to help each other attain those goals and dreams even if they may seem unrealistic. Another option is to have a meal together without the television or anything that may cause a distraction. Use that time to hear what is going on in your partner’s life and then share the same with him/her.

Social Intimacy is the process of sharing and enjoying what happens when you are together in public. Have a date night one night per week. Try an activity that you wouldn’t normally do, but your partner enjoys. Then ask him/her to do the same. Don’t forget that courtship never ends!

Spiritual Intimacy is the mutual understanding and respect for each others’ religious beliefs. Share your insights and inspirations for your personal and spiritual growth. Discuss how you feel about religion or spirituality.

Emotional Intimacy occurs when you can share something that makes you feel insecure or vulnerable and your partner responds with respect and kindness. Trust and confidence will cause your relationship to grow to deeper levels of love. Exchange your deepest secrets and listen to each other with an open and loving heart. Remember not to judge.

Physical Intimacy is the act of touching each other in both a non-sexual and a sexual way. Ask your partner what they would like to try and you answer the same question, and then do it. Light some candles and invite your partner to share a romantic bubble bath with you. Sip on some champagne and engage in a nice conversation in the tub.

Try these five steps and perhaps your relationship will get its spark back.

For more information and examples of each level of intimacy check out http://www.beyondseductionlovingwithoutlimits.com/

Discovery Channel’s “The Science of Sex Appeal” wonders where real attraction comes from.

Is it his six-figure salary? The sound of her voice? His smell?

Maybe it’s their values or religious beliefs?

Perhaps it’s something you can’t quite put your finger on.

Of course, it’s totally possible that you’re purely attracted to their hot body, face, hair, arms, legs, ass and anything else physical.

“The Science of Sex Appeal” is a probing documentary that explores these passionate mysteries.

Want a free copy of the DVD?

Register as a free Blast user and post a comment. Tell us what you notice in someone you’re attracted to. The most unique response will win the DVD.

You must be a legal US resident, 18 or older.

What do men want?

That question creates a myriad of responses from men, ranging from sex to blowjobs to food.  Most women, unable to just come up with an answer, run to their best friend, the latest glossy magazine, or the newest book, hoping someone will have finally solved the mystery.  Rhonda Ricardo, author and columnist, went straight to the source: men.

"When my friends come to me and ask me what they should do, because they feel like their men are going to leave them, I don’t know what to say, because I don’t know their man.  But I tell them maybe Mike or Ken or Lucas or Marco have something to say that would help," Ricardo said.

Ricardo interviewed over 100 men.  Their stories fill her book, Cherries over Quicksand.  These men relived their recent relationships to Ricardo, revealing what they really want in a woman and what things they can’t stand.

Clarence had a girlfriend who constantly used baby talk in the bedroom.  He told Ricardo it turned him off, and he left his girlfriend because of it.  Clarence was one of three men in Cherries over Quicksand who expressed concern over baby talk.  Ricardo wrote that baby talk remains a mystery to her.

In order to write the book, Ricardo approached strangers, armed with her society column from The Californian/ North County Times. "I’ll show them my column so they know I’m not picking them up.  I did go to the most handsome men in the room, because it’s more fun," Ricardo said, laughing like a friend might over a glass of wine and gossip.

Because of her fianc©’s racing career, Ricardo traveled around the country, giving her a chance to meet a diverse group of men.  Ricardo said 90 percent of the men had a story.  "They tell me the things they wish they would have told their woman.  Some of them had tears in their eyes," Ricardo said.

The things the men missed about the women they left were surprising, according to Ricardo.  "It wasn’t all physical things like you’d expect.  One man said he missed her happy morning sleepy face.  I just love that one," Ricardo said.

Ricardo said most of the men hadn’t been as forthcoming to the women in their life, as they had been to her.  "Women take it the wrong way when men are honest," Ricardo said.

Not a fan of being preached at, Ricardo said she tried to just tell the men’s stories.  She said one of her favorite stories presented an analogy for women to understand how to communicate with men:

George was a successful business man who thought he was happily married.  His wife would tell him that she was lonely, but he ignored it.  One day she told him to leave.  Eight years later, he told Ricardo that he wished his wife would have hit him with a truck or, as a less violent option, put her foot down and demanded that he spend time with her instead of working so hard.

"Women need to hit men with a truck, figuratively of course, because men think women are just talking.  They don’t take women seriously," Ricardo said.

Valentine’s Day can be stressful on a relationship, according to Ricardo.  She said this was true especially this year, when money and time are tight for most people.  Ricardo suggested women take their men to a car show.  "Men like anything with cars.  Do something with cars, and they’ll never forget it," Ricardo said.

She also suggested a calendar.  She said to write out people’s birthdays and anniversaries and to update each other’s schedule regularly.  "It’s respect, and saying, I don’t want you sitting at home, when you could have made plans with your friends, if I have plans to go out," Ricardo said.

Most men want the same things, according to Ricardo.  After talking to a diverse group of men from all over the country, she said their feelings about women were fairly universal.

"Men want a woman they can’t live without and women want to be that woman," Ricardo said.