sensual fusion

Informed. Empowered. Sensually Fused.

Sensual Fusion Blog

The blogs on Sensualfusion.com are written by some of the top sexuality experts around. Their information is based on scientific research and fact. Come learn about the latest news, "trends," and issues related to sex, sexual health, and intimate relationships...

Selling Sex Toys Sans Sex

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Are they? Will they? Oh. (Sigh.) They didn’t. Such was the anticipation – and let down – for many viewing the first-ever sex toy ad, which aired on British television earlier this month. While Lovehoney, the U.K.’s largest sex toy retailer, made its mark as the first of its kind to advertise on UK tellies, its 30-second plug didn’t once show any of the products it sells.

Talk about a “buzzkill.” Featuring a fully-clothed, married couple making out as the man is about to leave for work, the ad does come off as steamy, racy, and frisky. But what it’s selling is largely left to the imagination. One has to really read into the voiceover at the end stating: “Lovehoney.co.uk. The sexual happiness people.”

In its defense, Halo Media, the ad agency who placed the 10:15am plug during a segment of the American reality show “The Real Housewives of New York,” has really had its hands tied in promoting Lovehoney. While sexuality saturates nearly all forms of advertising media, they’ve had to keep things tame and covert.

London Transit, for example, has had Halo Media jumping over one hurdle after the next, refusing to allow billboard copies of Lovehoney ads involving a couple kissing on a London subway train. It only agreed to run a billboard ad of a couple kissing in a supermarket after the man’s hand could no longer be seen on his partner’s waist. The adverts also had to replace “sex toys” with “adult toys.”  

The hypocrisy should have every consumer’s blood boiling. Why is it taboo to have sex sell a sex toy ad, but perfectly okay for other products to plug themselves with totally sex-charged adverts? Why must we be subjected to often painfully lame advertising attempts using sex to sell anything from motor oil to phone books, but not be sexually enticed by products meant to help our sexual well being? And on a related note, why is it okay for a music video to feature rock stars engaging in bondage, simulated group sex, and other explicit acts, but featuring a sex toy ad is deemed “dirty”?

It makes sense to have sexy ads sell sex products. It doesn’t make sense that non-sex product ads are allowed to be much more provocative in their efforts. Whether it’s jeans, liquor, or a sexual enhancement product being sold, the same rules need to apply across the board. As consumers, we need to demand such. 


Suing over Sex – Now That’s Criminal

Wednesday, September 07, 2011

Should you be obligated to have sex with your spouse? A judge in Nice, France thinks so. He fined a 51-year-old man 8,500 pounds for not having sex with his now ex-wife. The judge’s decision was based on French civil code article 215, which holds that married couples must agree to a “shared communal life.” In the judge’s eyes, this means: “sexual relations must form part of a marriage.”

In an age when countries’ legal systems are finally changing their books to recognize spousal rape and sexual assault as crimes, this interpretation should be considered alarming.

While people typically marry with the expectation that sexual activity will be a part of “’til death do us part,” if even just for procreation, sex isn’t necessarily a guarantee. It’s not a contractual obligation. It’s certainly not part of the vows people declare on their wedding day. So to be faulted for failing to have sex with your husband or wife seems not only antiquated, but also barbaric, especially when you consider sexuality throughout the lifespan.

People’s sexual interest and desire can wane at any point for a number of physical, emotional, mental, relational reasons. (The husband who just got sued claimed “tiredness and health problems” for his lack of libido.) People’s intentions going into a marriage can change as well, with sex no longer a priority.

The French judge’s decision, and justifying comment that, “By getting married, couples agree to sharing their life and this clearly implies they will have sex with each other” is disturbing. His ruling and rationale echo that of Michael Hale, a 17th century Chief Justice in England, who pronounced that a husband could not be found guilty of raping his wife “for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto the husband which she cannot retract.

These quotes basically indicate that you have no choice when it comes to sex in your marriage. You have no right to say “no.” You have no protections when it comes to your spouse potentially sexually assaulting or raping you. In fact, now you can be sued!

It’s easy to sympathize with the woman who sought divorce on the grounds that there was a lack of sex over the course of their 21-year marriage.  To withhold such bonding, affection, and touch can, in many ways, be seen as a form of emotional abuse, especially when one’s sexual needs have been explicitly expressed.

At the same time, being able to successfully sue a former partner for withholding sex should be unfathomable and considered criminal. Whether married for two years or twenty, husbands and wives have the right to control their bodies, including abstaining.  


How Far is Going Too Far in Teaching Sex?

Friday, March 11, 2011

How far is going too far when it comes to sex education? Such is being debated once again thanks to a live sex act demonstration at Northwestern University. The controversy, spawned by the decisions of tenured professor J. Michael Bailey, involves an after-class where a guest presenter used a machine-powered saw with a phallic object (instead of a blade) on his fiancé, to the point of orgasm, in front of about 100 students.

This “on the fly” event followed a lecture on bondage, swinging, and other sexual behaviors, plus video of a woman experiencing climax. When the flick was deemed “unrealistic,” the idea of a live sex act was born. With Bailey finding no reason not to allow the demo, he and his co-presenter gave students numerous warnings about the graphic nature of the presentation before proceeding. Some students did leave before the woman was penetrated with a sex device for about three minutes.

While Northwestern’s president, Morton Schapiro, has reacted by launching an investigation, Bailey first reacted with “that is what I get paid for.” The psychology professor has since issued a written apology, claiming that the demonstration was unplanned and based on a quick decision – something he should not have done – though he naively sees “absolutely no harm in what happened.”

In the meantime, the media and academic circles alike are debating whether or not higher education can – and should – go about teaching differently. This demonstration was just the latest in a string of educational offerings Bailey has facilitated, with earlier ones involving presentations, panel discussions or question-and-answer sessions by swingers, transvestites, convicted sex offenders, transsexual performers, and people into “kink.” So does making topics “live” cross the line?

Bailey’s defenders claim that his teaching decisions are all in the name of academic freedom, and that he cannot be faulted for providing students with an opportunity that is a part of what the university experience should be about. Bailey’s critics see what apparently amounts to no more than a reenactment of an Amsterdam sex show as inappropriate, irresponsible, and poor judgment on a number of levels, most basically when it comes to consent.  

Concern has been raised over matters like: Did students truly understand what they were about to see? How much did peer pressure play in students not leaving? (Consider that some may not have attended class that day had they known about the demo ahead of time.) Regardless, were students fully protected from what they were about to witness?

Issues around preparation, debriefing, and support have raised alarm even more given the woman involved, a self-described exhibitionist, has made statements indicating that the audience was actually part of the couple’s sexual experience. Media attention, students’ own negative experiences with sex, and conflict over the decision to stay and watch could further be causing students distress.

Bailey has gone on the defensive as sex positive, feeling that his “sex negative” attackers are practicing censorship. He believes no one has given good cause for why the demonstration should not have been offered, especially since he warned the 567 students enrolled in the class that the demo would be explicit (students were invited to voluntarily view the demonstration, and without any impact on their grade). He sees this demonstration as an opportunity for learners to experience areas of sexuality rarely seen.

Unfortunately, it’s all too predictable that the fields of sexuality education and sex research will pay the price for Bailey’s missteps – at least in the United States. What seemingly amounted to no more than an attempt to shock and titillate has crowned Bailey as the Jerry Springer of sex education, and any attempts to highlight real experiences as “freak shows.” Bailey has demonstrated complete ignorance or lack of care when it comes the political and social climates in which sexuality educators operate. Incidences like these hurt all educators who are truly interested in teaching learners about sexuality.

Ironically, many sexuality educators themselves have never attended a workshop or presentation involving nudity, live sex demonstrations, or enhancement products. Knowing well that such learning experiences are largely unnecessary in teaching and learning about sex, a number want to know about the goals and objectives in Bailey’s lesson plan. What were they and what does a live demonstration do for students that a film or website cannot? How does a live sex act meet students’ educational needs?

So far, Bailey hasn’t given anybody any good answers or rationale for his decisions. 

How Far is Going Too Far in Teaching Sex?

Friday, March 11, 2011

How far is going too far when it comes to sex education? Such is being debated once again thanks to a live sex act demonstration at Northwestern University. The controversy, spawned by the decisions of tenured professor J. Michael Bailey, involves an after-class where a guest presenter used a machine-powered saw with a phallic object (instead of a blade) on his fiancé, to the point of orgasm, in front of about 100 students.

This “on the fly” event followed a lecture on bondage, swinging, and other sexual behaviors, plus video of a woman experiencing climax. When the flick was deemed “unrealistic,” the idea of a live sex act was born. With Bailey finding no reason not to allow the demo, he and his co-presenter gave students numerous warnings about the graphic nature of the presentation before proceeding. Some students did leave before the woman was penetrated with a sex device for about three minutes.

While Northwestern’s president, Morton Schapiro, has reacted by launching an investigation, Bailey first reacted with “that is what I get paid for.” The psychology professor has since issued a written apology, claiming that the demonstration was unplanned and based on a quick decision – something he should not have done – though he naively sees “absolutely no harm in what happened.”

In the meantime, the media and academic circles alike are debating whether or not higher education can – and should – go about teaching differently. This demonstration was just the latest in a string of educational offerings Bailey has facilitated, with earlier ones involving presentations, panel discussions or question-and-answer sessions by swingers, transvestites, convicted sex offenders, transsexual performers, and people into “kink.” So does making topics “live” cross the line?

Bailey’s defenders claim that his teaching decisions are all in the name of academic freedom, and that he cannot be faulted for providing students with an opportunity that is a part of what the university experience should be about. Bailey’s critics see what apparently amounts to no more than a reenactment of an Amsterdam sex show as inappropriate, irresponsible, and poor judgment on a number of levels, most basically when it comes to consent.  

Concern has been raised over matters like: Did students truly understand what they were about to see? How much did peer pressure play in students not leaving? (Consider that some may not have attended class that day had they known about the demo ahead of time.) Regardless, were students fully protected from what they were about to witness?

Issues around preparation, debriefing, and support have raised alarm even more given the woman involved, a self-described exhibitionist, has made statements indicating that the audience was actually part of the couple’s sexual experience. Media attention, students’ own negative experiences with sex, and conflict over the decision to stay and watch could further be causing students distress.

Bailey has gone on the defensive as sex positive, feeling that his “sex negative” attackers are practicing censorship. He believes no one has given good cause for why the demonstration should not have been offered, especially since he warned the 567 students enrolled in the class that the demo would be explicit (students were invited to voluntarily view the demonstration, and without any impact on their grade). He sees this demonstration as an opportunity for learners to experience areas of sexuality rarely seen.

Unfortunately, it’s all too predictable that the fields of sexuality education and sex research will pay the price for Bailey’s missteps – at least in the United States. What seemingly amounted to no more than an attempt to shock and titillate has crowned Bailey as the Jerry Springer of sex education, and any attempts to highlight real experiences as “freak shows.” Bailey has demonstrated complete ignorance or lack of care when it comes the political and social climates in which sexuality educators operate. Incidences like these hurt all educators who are truly interested in teaching learners about sexuality.

Ironically, many sexuality educators themselves have never attended a workshop or presentation involving nudity, live sex demonstrations, or enhancement products. Knowing well that such learning experiences are largely unnecessary in teaching and learning about sex, a number want to know about the goals and objectives in Bailey’s lesson plan. What were they and what does a live demonstration do for students that a film or website cannot? How does a live sex act meet students’ educational needs?

So far, Bailey hasn’t given anybody any good answers or rationale for his decisions. 

Dr. Castellanos: Using Mental Stimulation for a Great Sex Life

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

What sets our sex and sexuality apart from every other animal on the planet is the involvement of our mind and every aspect of our person, not just our bodies.  This means that our sexual activity is much more complex because it exists on many levels - our physical being, our personality, our intellect, our wants and desires, our creativity, and our memories and dreams.  Our capacity for satisfaction, then, also exists on all of these levels, which involves our minds even more than our bodies.  The involvement of our mind and positive mental stimulation leads to a healthy, vibrant, and active sex life with greater stimulation and satisfaction that can endure over time.

Although we are biologically programmed for sex, our mind plays a huge role in directing our sexual activity.  The type of partner we look for, the type of activity that excites us, and how comfortable we feel around our sexual activity all have to do with our mind.  Even our ability to get sexually aroused is, for the most part, controlled by our mind, because we respond positively to those activities, scenarios, and interactions that we already define as 'exciting' or 'sexy', while we turn off to things we find distasteful, rude, or ridiculous.  Knowing ourselves and how our mind works to enhance our sex life can be very useful in creating a sex life that is fun, stimulating, exciting, and continuously interesting.  

The mental part of sex happens long before there is any physical contact.  As we are going through our day, any thoughts we have about sex or sensuality contribute to our mental stimulation for sex.  We may start to plan how we would like our next sexual encounter to be like, or think about the exciting aspects of our last sexual encounter.  By doing this, we are priming our brains to have pleasure with our partner by enhancing the positive aspects in the way we think about our sex life and our sexual activity with them.  We may think of different scenarios that we have had, or those that we would like to try, which increases our interest, motivation, and and level of excitement.

Actually, studies have shown that oftentimes the anticipation of something can be just as pleasurable or more that an activity itself.  The way this works is because our mind gets a great deal of enjoyment from imaging the ideal situation - the most desirable touch, the most exciting surroundings, the most stimulating interactions.  Knowing how to make the most of this mental stimulation helps heighten this pleasure for ourselves, contributing to a more exciting sex life with our partners.  As we explore the mental stimulation aspect of our sexuality, we also learn about our own sexuality and its depth and complexity.

Of course, mental stimulation plays a huge role in the actually moment of sexual contact.  How we think about sex and what we choose to focus on can be the difference between experiencing anxiety, detachment, and disappointment, or experiencing delight, intense excitement, and intense pleasure.  Something as simple as focusing our attention on what physically feels good at the moment, or how our partner is responding or aroused heightens our own arousal and brings us closer to ecstasy.  On the other hand, if we can only focus on getting to orgasm, or are more outside of ourselves with worries and doubts, it cuts into our the flow of sexual arousal and distracts us from our sexual activity.  It is the difference between using our minds to get lost in the moment, and using our mind to take us away from the full experience of sex. 

Decreased Fertility Doesn’t Decrease Her Desire

Sunday, July 25, 2010

It’s long been suspected that older gals do it better, but more often? Turns out, they’re not getting the credit they deserve, with all indicators being that – single or married, mother or childless – older women are as much about being sexually active as they were in their younger years, if not more. A new study out of the University of Texas at Austin reports that women are more willing to engage in “reproduction expediting” sexual activities, like one-night stands or more “adventurous” bedroom behavior, as their biological clock makes itself known.

The report, published in Personality and Individual Differences, involved more than 827 women, and found that those ages 27 – 45 have a heightened sex drive, which researchers have attributed to their decreasing fertility. Compared to women of high fertility (those ages 18 – 26) and menopausal women, women of low fertility were likelier to report:

  • Thoughts about sexual activities and a more active sex life (having sexual intercourse more frequently than women of other age groups)
  • Not only more frequent sexual phantasms, but more intense ones than younger gals
  • A desire to have casual sex or a one-night stand

Researchers concluded that a psychological adaptation takes place with declining fertility, starting in a female’s late twenties. Women are more willing to engage in a variety of sexual activities, primary of which is sexual intercourse, in an effort to maximize their reproductive capabilities. They admit, however, that other factors could be at play for her increased sexual pursuits, including a woman’s increased comfort with her sexuality with age.

Perhaps they could’ve been more definitive as to their results had they asked the women for their thoughts on the matter beyond simply assessing if they desired a child. Ask almost any woman in her thirties, and there is something about this decade in her life when her maternal instinct kicks into high gear, as 33-year-old pop star Shakira recently told Rolling Stones: “Lately my body feels like it is just asking to reproduce, to have a huge belly and carry babies.” Surprising, disarming, and pleasure-evoking, it’s an energy – a primal stirring – to which many women can relate. Perhaps, too, can her mate(s) – but that’s a whole other study.