When I was a young boy of 12 years old, I thought girls were three things: prissy, yucky and confusing. I am now a dad of two young girls, the oldest of which is 12 and my views of changed. They are still confusion. They are not yucky,; at least my two aren’t. And most of all, for better or for worse, they are far from prissy. As a matter of fact, they are kind of stinky.
A regular source of debate in our house over the past year has been who to get our 12 year old daughter to care about her personal hygiene. In 12 years, I am not sure she has every initiated a hair wash without us harassing her. She does bathe, but think it is more because Canada gets cold in the winter and we don;t own a hot tub than out of any real desire for cleanliness. Her clothing… she wears a uniform to school, but on her own time she would wear the same jeans and T-shirt everyday, that were too small for her 2 years ago but are really, really, really comfortable.
So what do we do? The last thing we want is to have our daughter become obsessed with her looks, but we wish she would care… at least a little. Advice?
asugarbaby’s diary (a great blog by the way) wrote an interesting post today on whether there is a female version of a sugar daddy. (http://wordpress.com/read/blog/id/64586302/). She believes, and I agree, that while sugar daddy arrangement are increasingly common, sugar mommy equivalents are incredibly rare.
It made me wonder why. Here’s my theory…There was a study done on the porn viewing habits of men and women. One of the surprising results was that men and women consume porn at surprisingly similar rates – they both watch/listen to/read quite a lot. But where there is a huge difference between men and women’s porn habit is that rate at which they are willing to pay for it.
When the study authors looked at pay sites on the internet, users are almost exclusively men. So, free sites: both men and women. Paid sites: just men. The authors drew two possible conclusions, both of which are probably contributors and therefore both right: (i) women are not accustomed to paying for sex, and they therefore also choose not to pay for porn; related to this they also speculated on a tendency for women to be more practical than men and, therefore, are less likely to pay for something they can get free; (ii) women, because sexuality is still stigmatized, are unwilling to signup for paid porn sites because it would involve using a credit card, typing their name, etc. As I said, there is likely truth in both of these theories.
But the long and the short: women like porn but are far less willing to pay for porn than men.
So how does this apply too sugar mommies. Just as men and women may similarly like sex, and sex with younger hotter partners, women simply are less inclined to pay for it. Therefore, no sugar mommies. Sorry Guys. IMHO.
In the age of easy-access porn, the impacts that pornography has on its consumers is hotly debated. I haver expressed the view before that I believe porn, when used responsibly and in moderation, can be a healthy part of person or couple’s sex life. Moreover, I think many of the negative consequences often associated with porn – objectifying women, causing sexual violence, sex trafficking – are both grossly exaggerated by the religious right and, to the extent that these risks are real, will only be resolved if we accept porn and sex work into the mainstream fold of society and de-stigmatize and regulate it.
I am pretty sure about this, but I do keep my mind and eyes open to evidence that either supports or refutes my beliefs. This morning I found an interesting study on www.sexscience.org In a study by Fisher and Barrack (2001) studies rates of sexual violence after a full decade of porn becoming easily available online. His findings: there no increase in rates of reported sexual assault. As a matter of fact, there has been a shape decrease, from 37 incidents/100,000 people, to 31 incidents/100,000 people from 1995-2005. A related body of literature has, with a few exceptions, generally found that convicted sex offenders report less exposure to sexually explicit materials compared to individuals who are not sex offenders
I came across a fun quiz while I was surfing the net last night.
I got 88
I was watching the latest episode of True Detectives last night (great show, but spoiler alert, so read no further if you are watching but have not seen episode 6 yet).
There is a scene where Woody Harrelson’s wife comes to Matthew McConaughey’s house. She walks in the door, they exchange less than a sentence, they kiss for 10 seconds, he pulls down her panties, thrusts into her from behind and in less than a minute it is all done.
This is one example, but we see this in movies and TV shows repeatedly, where with absolutely no foreplay a guy enters a girl and in a few thrusts they are done. A few questions, and I am sincere in asking these:
– don’t all women need at least some stimulation before they can have penetrative sex? I have never experienced this. The norm, in my experience, is that even a quickie needs a few minutes of stimulation before there is enough moisture for penetration. I dated a women once who I considered extremely sexual, wet and easily aroused. Even with her, if we had no foreplay and just wanted really quick sex, it would take at least a minute of gently rubbing my penis against her pu&*y (I refuse to use clinical terms but not want to offend anyone with vulgarity) for at least a minute before I would slide in.
– can any guy orgasm in just a few thrusts? Even at my horniest, teenage days, I could never bring myself to organism in less than a couple of minutes. Do some guys get off in just a few strokes?
I know you will all say this is TV and not realistic. I get that. But what I am asking is do these two phenomena really exist — the ultra wet, primed pu&^y and the 10 second male ejaculation? I really do want to know.
Top 5 best sex shows in Toronto.
Some sexy, fun events if you are in the Toronto, Canada area