Sabtu, 06 Mei 2017

topics sex

hi community of awesome! i'm ava jae, andthis is bookishpixie. so today i want to talk about a topic thatfrequently comes up when discussing ya, especially when talking about banned books, and that'ssex and swearing in young adult literature. i find this question especially comes up alot with readers of young adult and writers of young adult who are wondering how muchya authors are allowed to get away with.

topics sex

topics sex, and the truth is, in terms of including sex,and swearing, and drugs and whatever else in ya, authors are allowed to get away withquite a bit. for example, just pulling off my shelf, igniteme by tahereh mafi has a pretty steamy ya sex scene. and i'll give you the sun by jandy nelsonhas sex, and swearing, and specifically talks

about boners...yup. and eleanor & park by rainbow rowell has swearingright off the first page, and also has graphic sexual content. and i mean, those are just a couple examplesthat i quickly pulled off my shelf. now don't get me wrong, i'm not saying thatthese books have graphic content and therefore shouldn't be read or anything like that. and in fact, all of the examples i gave werebooks that i really enjoyed reading. because here's the truth about sex, and swearing,and drugs, and whatever else in young adult literature: teens believe it or not have sex,and do drugs, and they swear a lot.

now of course i'm not saying that all teensdo all of those things or even any of those things, but a lot of teens do. and so while not all ya needs to have sex,and swearing, and drugs, it makes sense that a lot of ya does. literature in one form or another is aboutrepresenting different aspects of reality. even fantasy books that take place in anotherworld have the same kind of resonances, whether it's through emotional resonances, or themes,or problems that the protagonist encounters that teens can relate to in their own livesin different ways. it wouldn't make sense for all ya to haveteens who don't do drugs, and don't have sex,

and don't swear. because that's just not reality, and teenssee right through that. so if you're a ya writer, you don't have toinclude sex, and swearing, and drugs, or whatever other themes that might make you uncomfortable. but the truth is that you certainly don'tneed to shy away from it either. so that's all i've got for today! if you likedwhat you saw, don't forget to subscribe and comment, and i'll see you guys next week!

Jumat, 05 Mei 2017

todays sex

hi i'm jacqueline hellyer and today's sextoy sexpose is implements for soft sensation play. so i'm really big on creating all sortsof sensory activites on the body, moving away from just thinking about sex as a genitalencounter and finding all sorts of sensory activites everywhere else. now as you cansee i've already blindfolded bruce here cos this is one of those times where it can bereally lovely to cut out that sensation, the

todays sex

todays sex, visual so that you can highlight the here's this beautiful little tickler, this is one from lelo see how it's beautifuland purple and feathery and you just find lovely ways to stimulate your partner includingtheir genitals lovely penis there beautiful sensation. now you may find that you've gotsome stuff just lying around the house now

i just found this in the kids bedroom, don'teven know what it is but i tell you what "nice eh bruce?" so it's amazing what you can findaround the house look this is something else i've found it's a curtain loop thing thatholds curtains back but look at that. what fun can you have with that. alright, we humansare blessed with these huge brains which means we can be infinitely creative when it comesto creating pleasure. oh fun bondage is actually for the next video. um and this too have alook at this, lovely little whip, flogger, it's made out of suede so it's actually quitesoft now you can just use it to tickle all over especially down here, feels rather niceanother lovely way to use it is to just swirl it round like this and then what you get isa nice tickly sensation particularly over

the genitals and for ladies for ladies breastsyou can do this and if you want you can also do some nice little flicks on a real personit can sound quite charmingly rough but it really doesn't hurt that much. so you canalso do sensory activites like this to your partner. so soft sensation play and fun bondage,you can buy beautiful things, you can find some stuff around the house. go forth andplay. lovelife by jacqueline hellyer

Kamis, 04 Mei 2017

the psychology of sex

part of the work i've done with couples revolves around kind of the sexual scripts, which are the sexual response cycles that i see couples come in with. and it's almost like they have this preconditioned idea that this is the story i'm supposed to have for sex and if it doesn't go this way, then there's something wrong. and so, i have to talk with him about, you know what, that's

the psychology of sex

the psychology of sex, just the story that we have in the united states, mainly from this medical point of view. but, you can write your sexual script any way you want. so, it doesn't have to end in orgasm. it doesn't have to start out with this massive building up of desire and excitement. it can go any way that you want it to and

that's what's really important as people need to understand that they really own their sexual response cycle. and they own their sexual script. and it really can be written and rewritten any way that's, that's comfortable for them. so we know that there's a difference in sexual response depending on the culture but do women and men have different orgasms. even though a lot of people orgasms whether it be through self stimulation self love or partnered or partnered experiences, many people do orgasms. however, there are large percentages of people who do not. again a lot of times that does tend to be women who experience more difficulty orgaziming. on average, the orgasm, kind

of experience is the shortest part of a sexual response cycle. unless of course, you're, you know, a pig in which case, it's like thirty minutes long. but, humans are very short cycled for their orgasm but that really varies from person to person as well. so, for some people an orgasm might last like thirty seconds, for other people it could last a matter of minutes. and actually woman tend to have longer orgasms than men. or are capable of longer orgasms. women, when they do orgasm are also able to have multiple orgasms pretty consecutively in a row pretty easily compared to their male counterpart. so, once a woman kind of figures out how to have an orgasm, she actually has more opportunity

for longer orgasms and more of them in comparison to men. however in general, more women do struggle to kind of learn how to orgasm. and i say learn how to orgasm because one of the biggest differences is just is an, it's an anatomical difference, right. so men they have basically all of their equipment right in front of them on the outside, you know, their penis is right in front of them, their testicles is right in front of them. so it's, it's very easy to kind of self explore and figure it out what to do, right. with women, most of the equipment is internal. so it's very difficult to kind of figure out what, what your body's doing, what something feels like. i mean and there's a difference

between a clitoral orgasm and a [inaudible] spot orgasm or a g-spot orgasm. and a lot of women, it takes a lot of exploration before they're really able to have an orgasm in either location. and a lot of the holdup for women is just that many societies, pretty much across the globe, many societies have put restrictions on women. social restrictions, moral restrictions, religious restrictions where they're, they're kind of sent this message that sex is something that they're not supposed to enjoy. and doesn't really, their needs really aren't all that important in

terms of desire, arousal and orgasm. and so, it's very challenging to, for women not only because it's anatomical differences to orgasm because we have to learn. but they also have to tear down kind of this societal block or wall that has been created in their mind around not being able to orgasm. so, couple things i recommend for people when i see clients, especially women who are struggling to have an orgasm and they want to have an orgasm. it's okay if people don't want to orgasm too. that's fine. but what i recommend when they do is, a lot of self exploration, so getting to know their own body. and then a lot of, just cognitive behavioral therapies to work on the fact that it's

totally normative and natural to have sexual feelings and to feel good when you're engaging in certain behaviors.

Rabu, 03 Mei 2017

sexual psychology

fantasy is certain, certainly a very common thing that everyone engages in. and when i'm talking about fantasy, it doesn't necessarily have to be erotic or sexual fantasy. a lot of people daydream or fantasize about multiple things throughout the day. so, maybe the perfect job they want or maybe like a certain house or maybe the latest, you know, iphone or whatever the situation may be.

sexual psychology

sexual psychology, and so, its completely natural that people might fantasize about sex or erotic touch or just liking someone and being with them. in fact, in some recent studies 93% of men and 86% of women reported that they do engage in, in fantasy. it can be really helpful for individuals to be engaging in fan,

fantasy-type thoughts on their own as long as, again, they've got some cognitive kind of restructuring that they've done. if they have any walls or blockades around sex or sexuality. so that they aren't kind of beating themselves up later for fantasizing. so as long as they know that it's okay and they're comfortable doing that, then it's fine. couples also can engage in fantasy together. so they can tell each other their fantasies, tell each other their desires. and it doesn't necessarily mean that they have to act on those as a couple or as individuals. fantasy is, in it's definition, a fantasy. which often times is things we might not do or maybe that we have done and we're just

thinking about in hindsight. and as long as it's done in a way that is healthy for the individual, healthy for the couple, then absolutely. it's totally natural normal healthy and nothing wrong with it. >> at what age is it possible for people to reach orgazam, men and women? >> that's a great question. so, i hear this question a lot. you know when, when can people orgasm, when can they kind of experience sexually, you know, positive feelings, and so it's really interesting is, there are images of infants in utero. particularly male infants or infants with penises we don't really know their gender yet, but there are images of them in utero touching

their penises, fondling themselves. so one of the things that the techs that look at ultrasounds in the medical field will tell you is that oftentimes. it's hard to identify male infants because their hands are usually between their legs so much in utero that they never actually are able to see the penis. and so, although we can't be certain because, certainly there is no way to get inside the mind of an infant or even really ask them any questions. there's pretty good literature to support that both babies that happen to be male and babies that happen to be female are experiencing sexual feelings, orgasmic type feelings when, when their touching their genitalia. which is a totally natural

normal thing. even for small infants and toddlers to engage in. now are we talking about, you know, an orgasm where a male actually like ejaculates. well, no, certainly not in infancy. that doesn't happen until males tend to be like 12, 13 years old. but if we're talking about orgasmic feelings, there's, there's actually, we don't really know exactly when that starts. it's, it's as young as the person you know, becomes curious about their own body and, and starts exploring, so

Selasa, 02 Mei 2017

sex today

heya playas, currently not discussing hajar jahanam that can cope with premature ejaculation but I want to conveyto all the girls watching thismay make all the sense in the world. but if you're a guy like me, this may take some timeto wrap your brain around. now we've all heard it takes a woman no more than few secondsto determine whether or not she'd have sex with someone. now what if i were to tell youthat her entire decision could be flipped with just one kiss. the straight up truthis that women are much more sexual than guys

sex today
sex today, and the reason for that is that they're somuch more in tune with their feelings. their skin, their touch, their style, their seems like everything a woman does is at a much more slower pace than a man. and thereason for that is that women want to take in every emotion, every feeling, every experience.and for guys that's not always the case. we

want things quick, we want things our way.we want to know that we're getting the biggest bang for our buck each and every time. sohow does this translate to sex, better yet how does this translate to kissing? pacingyoung grasshopper. you must pace yourself. look back at movies from the 1950's and you'llsee that every epic finale involving the two main characters ended in a kiss. they didn'tend up knocking boots or having the guy finish on the girls face. they held one another intheir arms, locked eyes and kissed. the kiss is usually the first sexual encounter betweentwo people and the reality of it is that if you're a bad kisser it could probably be thebiggest turn off in the world. women are looking at it with the mentality of well if he can'tkiss me good then he probably can't do other

things as well either. where a man is likeyeah, you suck at kissing but you still got a vagina. even in female sex novels half thebook can go by before the heroine even looks at the half vampire-werewolf-soldier-traveler-detective'spenis. build up guys, women love build up. most men see kissing as nothing more thana step in the escalation process. here's the logic behind it, when a woman accepts yourkiss that's usually a sign to move on to the next level. urg, so why is kissing betterthan sex?think of it like this, a kiss is your chance to truly build la passion. imagineyou're watching a football game with a girl and she ends up skipping all the touchdownsand interceptions and goes right to the end where one team is taking a knee. well, thatdoesn't sound like a lot of fun and it wouldn't

be much of a game now would it? sometimesa girl may want to spend countless hours doing nothing but kissing until she's comfortableenough to trust you, comfortable enough to know that you'll guide her to the next level.and if done right, a woman will see that you're not just in it to bone her. you're in it tomake love to her. like this video if you agree that it's all about the build up. leave acomment letting me know what would your fantasy first kiss be like? and subscribe to the channelto see my other videos on sexy time relationship stuff. as always guys, love and peace. jamiesaved my life and for that i'll always remember her. but our love is like the wind, i can'tsee it but i can feel it. ooh that's powerful writing right there. ok guys, so monday'svideos gonna be a little bit different because

i'm gonna kinda be on the road so i'm notgonna be able to edit. i'm definitely gonna put something up, just really don't know what.i can't see it, but i can feel it.

Sabtu, 29 April 2017

sex psychology

professor paul bloom:sex is really strange. you ask people,"what's your favorite activity?"and if you ask people, particularly college students,particularly just fresh from spring break – i've seen teenmovies – they'll often answer,

sex psychology

sex psychology, "sex."or some word that is synonymous with sex.but there's a kind of a puzzle about how much time we spend onsex. and it turns out there is dataon this.

so, people say sex is theirfavorite activity, but it turns out we actuallyknow how much time the average american spends on sex.and the data i'm going to follow from was summarized inthis wonderful book by james gleick:americans tell pollsters their single favorite activityis sex. in terms of enjoyability,they rank sex ahead of sports, fishing, bar-hopping,hugging and kissing, talking with the family,eating, watching television,

going on trips,planning trips, gardening, bathing,shopping, dressing, housework, dishwashing,laundry, visiting the dentist, and getting the car repaired.on the other hand, these same studies suggestedthe average time per day devoted to sex is four minutes and threeseconds. [as gleick says,]this is not much, even if the four minutesexcludes time spent flirting, dancing, ogling,cruising the boulevard,

toning up in gyms,toning up in beauty parlors, rehearsing pick up lines,showering, thinking about sex, reading about sex,doodling pornographically, looking at erotic magazines,renting videos, dreaming of sex,looking at fashion magazines, cleaning up after sex,coping with the consequences of sex,building towers or otherwise repressing, transferring,and sublimating . and i like this passage becauseit illustrates two points,

two important is we don't actually spend that much time on fact, the four minutes and three seconds is an interestingnumber because when you do times studies on how much americansspend filling out tax-related forms for the irs,it's four minutes and a few seconds.but the passage also points out that regardless of the brutetime we spend on it, it is extraordinarilyimportant. everything in life follows fromit – marriage,

family, children,much of aggression, much of competition,much of art and music and creative pursuits.much of everything follows from it.if we were a creature without sex, everything would bedifferent. and what's interesting is,there are creatures without sex.there are creatures that reproduce by cloning.and in fact, this basic fact about people– that we fall,

roughly, into males and females– is an evolutionary mystery. it's not clear why animals thatare somewhat large have two sexes.from a biological darwinian perspective, having two sexes isbizarre because each time you have an offspring you toss awayhalf your genes. my children only have--each ofthem have half my dna. if i were to clone,they would have all of it. and so, it's a puzzle how sexever evolved. this is not a course inevolutionary biology,

and that's not the puzzle we'regoing to be looking at today. we're going to look at a fewquestions. first, we're going to talk fromfirst a theoretical point of view and then an empirical pointof view about how males and females are different.then we're going to talk about sexual attractiveness,some research about what people find to be sexually attractive,and then we'll talk a very little bit at the end about theorigins of sexual preference: why some people are straight,others gay, others bisexual,

and others harder to, of all the topics i'm presenting, sex is one of thesort of dicey ones from an emotional point of view.these are difficult issues because sex is,by definition, an intimate part of our lives,and it matters a lot. moreover, sex is fraught withmoral implications. and since i'm talking aboutthis from, at least at the beginning, from a darwinianevolutionary perspective, i'm obliged to start off bydealing with some of the moral

consequences and moralimplications. so, for instance,many biologists – all biologists i would say – willhave argued that sexual behavior,sexual action, sexual desire is,to some extent, a biological adaptationexisting to spread our genes. from that perspective then,non-procreative sex – including gay sex,sex with birth control, sex by post-menopausal women– does not serve this

reproductive goal and,in some sense perhaps, is unnatural.and one might argue then, "does this mean it's wrong?"we'll also be talking about sex differences, differences betweenmen and women, for instance,in how much you want anonymous sexual encounters,differences between men and women in social intelligence,in aggression and empathy. and regardless of what youthink about these differences, whether you think they're rightor wrong or it doesn't matter,

you'll ask the question,"to what extent are they mutable?"that is, if they exist through darwinian natural selection,to what extent can we ever get rid of them?and i want to address those two issues, the issues of moralityand inevitability, from the very start.and i want to start off with--for each of them have aquote by a prominent evolutionary, the first one is by steve pinker in how the mindworks.

and he writes, nature does not dictate what we should accept or how weshould live our lives. well into my procreating years,i am so far voluntarily childless, having squandered mybiological resources reading and writing,doing research, helping friends and students,and jogging in circles--ignoring the solemnimperative to spread my genes. by darwinian standards,i am a horrible mistake, a pathetic loser,but i am happy to be that way,

and if my genes don't like itthey can go jump in the lake.pinker's point, i think, is a reasonable is true that certain things we do exist to serve thedictates of natural selection, but that doesn't make themright? if you think that something isonly right if it leads to the generation of more genes,if it leads to reproduction, then you're not going to thinkvery much about birth control. you're not going to think verymuch about any sort of

non-procreative sex.on the other hand, if you're--moreover,if you think something's wrong if it's unnatural,you're going to think much about flying in a plane orrefrigerating food or surviving a severe infection.more generally, our bodies and brains haveevolved for reproductive success, but we can use thesebrains to choose our own destinies.nothing moral necessarily follows from the facts ofbiology.

that's all i'm going to sayabout morality. but i want you to keep it inmind when we discuss different claims about what's evolved andwhat hasn't. what about inevitability?here i want to turn to richard dawkins.richard dawkins writes, if a child has had badteaching in mathematics, it is accepted that a resultingdeficiency can be remedied by extra-good teaching in thefollowing year. but any suggestion that thechild's deficiency might have a

genetic origin is likely to begreeted with something approaching despair.if it's in the genes, it is determined and nothingcan be done about it. this is pernicious nonsense onan almost astrological scale. genetic causes andenvironmental causes are in principle no different from eachother. some may be harder to reverse,others may be easy. what did genes do to deservetheir sinister, juggernaut-like reputation?why are genes thought to be so

much more fixed and inescapablein their effects than television, nuns or books.i like the nuns. and the point here is whatcauses something is logically separate from what can reverseit. and you can think of clearcases where something is plainly genetic but is fairly easilyreversed and where something is cultural and is very difficultto reverse. here's an eyesight is quite poor. the reason why my eyesight isquite poor is not due to the

patriarchy, television,culture or "the man." rather, my eyesight is quitepoor due to the crappy genes mom and dad gave is genetically determined if anything is also fairly easy to fix. there are these machines wherethey put panes of glass in front of your eyes and help you to seebetter. more advanced machines known ascontact lenses actually stick the thing into your eyes,and at the cost of occasional infections you come to seebetter.

it's biologically caused butfairly easy to fix. on the other hand,take an example of society's treatment of the turns out when we – and we'll get to this a little bitwhen we talk about sexual attractiveness – how thinsomebody is or how fat they are; what you think of that isactually not particularly varies a lot from culture to culture.but once it's in a culture, it is almost impossible toshake.

so, the point,there is just that genetic does not mean inevitable,and cultural does not mean easy to fix.okay. that's general background.let's start with basic sex ed. what's the difference betweenmales and females? well, don't even think penisand vagina. there are a lot of animals thathave neither one. and the difference actuallyruns deeper. by definition,when biologists talk about

this, animals that are maleshave a little sex cell, which carries genes and nothingelse – sperm cells. animals that are females have abig sex cell, which has genes but also foodand a protective cover and all sorts of other stuff.typically, the little sex cell is much littler than the big sexcell. this is the only erotic picturei'm going to show you today. it's a bunch of these littlesperm circling around the egg. it's romantic.but this raises a puzzle.

i just described male andfemale roughly in terms of a size difference.males are the smaller of the sex cells;females are the bigger. why is it then that for so manyanimals males are the bigger ones, physically,and the more aggressive ones. this has been a puzzle that hasoccupied scientists for a long, long time.and we're pretty--there is now a pretty clear answer to it.and the answer goes like this. it is based on an idea byrobert trivers called "parental

investment."and what parental investment is, it's defined here as,any investment that's going to increase the offspring's chanceof survival at the cost of the parent's ability to invest inother offspring. so, for example,suppose an animal could create an offspring by blinking an eyeand then the offspring would run off?that would be extremely little investment.suppose another animal had to work for ten years,and during those ten years

could not create anotheroffspring. that would be a huge investment. trivers points out that withina species, females typically have a much higher parentalinvestment than males. because females have these bigsex cells, they typically incubate them internally.they carry them. if they're eggs,they might have to sit on them. and hence, each potential childis a huge cost. for males, which have the smallsex cell, you don't have the

same thing.for males, it might just be a few moments of copulation andthat's it. if you could ask yourself,for humans, each one of you in the room, "what is the minimumeffort you can do to create a child that has half your genes?"and it's apparent that the male investment, on average,is lower than the female investment.males can choose, or might do better off in somecircumstances by putting a lot of investment into theiroffspring, but females don't

have a choice.females, barring technological advance, have a huge investmentinto any offspring; not investment in the sense orhard work and effort, though there's that too.investment in the sense that when you're--when you'repregnant with one offspring, you can't have another.what this does is it has ramifications that percolateupwards. so, it leads to differentpsychologies. males--and a single male couldfertilize several females,

forcing some males to gomate-less and giving rise to competition to see who can matewith the most females. for females,however, females can always find, sheer numbers don't count. but there's competition to matewith the right males, those whose offspring have thebest chance of surviving. the competition now explainsthe puzzle we started with. it explains why males aretypically larger, and often why males haveevolved special weapons.

these special weapons evolvedfor fighting other males for reproductive also explains something else. females, biologically,are choosy. and so males have to competenot merely with other males to get reproductive access but alsoto woo females. and so often,males have evolved special displays like this ,which exist only to be beautiful, only to be attractiveand to attract mates. this cold evolutionary logicwas captured in this cartoon,

which really does sum up ahundred of mate-selection research. the logic goes like this then:difference in the size of sex cells leads to differences intypical parental investment, leading to differences in thesorts of psychological and physiological mechanisms thatevolved. okay, that's a good story.what sort of evidence is there for it?well, it turns out this could explain some otherwisesurprising things.

for instance,there should be--there are some cases where the parentalinvestment is switched, some cases where it turnsout--where the males end up with more investment than thefemales. and it--and the theory predictsthat in these cases you should get an, in cases like pipefish, for instance,the male takes the eggs into a pouch and plugs them into hisbloodstream. the females shoot off.they have less of an investment

than the this case, you would predict,as is true, the females should be larger, the females fightother females more than males fight males,and the females try to compete for the attention of the males.recall the movie "march of the penguins."we saw a clip from it, and this was in the context ofdiscussing the emotions that have evolved toward ouroffspring. but remember the story and howboth the male and the female

have to go to tremendous lengthsto protect the egg. and if one of them fails,the egg dies and neither one has should then not even have to remember whether malepenguins are much bigger than female should realize they should not be, and in fact they aren't.they're about the same size because the parental is should be able to predict the size differences andaggression differences based on differing parental for instance,

elephant seals are fourtimes--the males are enormous. they're four times bigger thanthe females. and this is in large partbecause elephant seals compete for harems of's a "winner take all." gibbons are about the same size.and this is because gibbons are pretty monogamous;they raise children together. this illustrates something,which is, it's not always the case that male parentalinvestment is low. there are some species,including gibbons,

where it's in the male'sreproductive advantage to care for the offspring.imagine a situation, for instance,where an offspring would die if both parents didn't watch it formany years and where the effort devoted to that offspring had tobe exclusive. if you focused on anotherfamily or went away, the offspring would that case, you'd have equal would matter equally to the male and the female to invest intheir offspring,

and the cost would be the same.there's no species--it's hard to see species that have thatmuch of an equal system, but some primates are close toit. and this raises the questionthen, "what about humans?" what about us?what do we know about the differences between males andfemales? well, humans are a relativelypolygamous species. most cultures--most humancultures are polygamous. american culture is what theycall "serial monogamy."

so, we're not like some speciesof birds. we don't mate for life.we do a series of peer-bondings for some period of could be for life, but indeed may not be andusually isn't. males are bigger than females.human males--the size estimates vary so much,but the average human male is about fifteen percent largerthan the average human female. this suggests that there'ssome--there's been, in our evolutionary history,some male-male competition for

access to females,which suggests, in turn, that the parentalinvestment is not quite equal. males have smaller testiclesfor their body size than chimpanzees, but largertesticles than gorillas and gibbons.and this suggests that there was some intermediate amount ofcompetition for the capacity to create sperm.and this is relevant for a different sort of competition,which regards the impregnation of females that have multiplemates.

and this suggests that overevolutionary history women were not wantonly promiscuous,but were not entirely monogamous either;so much so that it paid from an evolutionary point of view toevolve--males to evolve the capacity to produce more spermthan other males. aggression.males are meaner. i mean i'm summarizing here.meaner is not a technical term. yes, females can be meaner,but males are at least more physically violent.they're more violent in the

womb, in utero;they're more violent as children, and they're moreviolent as adults. again, this is not to say thatyou can't find violent women or non-violent's just on average there is this difference.they kick more; males kick more in the children they're more involved in play fighting andviolent combat-like sports. and as adults,wherever you go you will find a prison.and wherever you go you will

find that prison is mostly fullof men. they are far more likely tokill one another and to harm one another.male sex hormones, like testosterone,are not the sort of thing one would want to inject in somebodyunless you want them to turn kind of mean.they increase aggressiveness, both in humans and in otherprimates. what about sexual choosiness?do male humans and female humans differ in the extent towhich they will favor anonymous

sex?and this is relevant from an evolutionary perspective,because the parental investment theory predicts males should bemore receptive to anonymous sex. because for males,to impregnate somebody else might fortuitously lead toanother offspring; it might be good for you anddoesn't carry the sort of harm that females,on the other hand, have to be very picky.because they have to choose carefully.remember, these systems evolved

before birth control andvasectomies and so on. so, what do we knowcross-culturally and psychologically?well, prostitution is a universally, or nearuniversally, male interest. there are male prostitutes,of course, but contrary to some various fantasies and sitcoms,they cater to male customers. pornography is a humanuniversal. in every society,males have done some sort of depictions of naked females forthe purposes of arousal.

often they carve them intotrees or do sort of sculptures. one of the weirdest findings inthe last decade or so is that this extends as well to monkeyporn. and so, some scientists at dukeset up a situation where monkeys could pay in fruit juice,by giving up fruit juice, to look a picture either of thefemale's hindquarters or of a celebrity monkey,a socially dominant monkey, some sort of combination ofpeople magazine and penthouse.and so, there's some interest

in this even by non-humanprimates. what about actually preferencefor sexual variety? well, you can get at this indifferent ways. there is what biologistsdescribe as the "coolidge effect."i have this here. and the coolidge effect isbased on president calvin coolidge.and it's a story about calvin coolidge and his wife,who were being shown around a farm separately.and the person showing around

his wife pointed out that therewere a lot of hens; she noticed that there were alot of hens but only one rooster.and she asked the guy showing her around, "is one roosterenough?" and the guys said,"well, you know, the rooster works very hard.the rooster has sex dozens of times a day."and she said, "well, be sure to tell that tothe president." the story goes,the president went around,

the guy tells the story to thepresident. the president asks the man,"huh. has sex dozens of times eachday. same hen every time?"the guy says, "no, different hen every time."and he says, "tell that to mrs.coolidge." now, there are two responses tothis sort of story, and they're both kind ofnegative. one thing is,"well, everybody knows males

prefer anonymous sex withstrange women. duh."the other response is, "that's sexist claptrap."you might think--you might be a male and say,"that's not me." you might know males and say,"the males i know are not like that."so, how do you find out? well, there are indirectmeasures, such who goes to prostitutes.but there are also fairly direct fairly direct measure is

you could ask people inanonymous surveys. so, in fact,i'll give you some anonymous surveys.i'm not going to ask people. and you just ask, for instance, i want everybody to considerthis question. how many sexual partners do youwant to have in the next month? what is it--we're coming up toapril. how many sexual partners do youwant in april? next two years?take many of you through

graduation.when you leave yale, what do you want--like,"i had x sexual partners, and that's what i wanted."or your lifetime? we get people to answer thesequestions. professor chun last year inthis course had clickers, and he got people to do it.we are not so high tech, so we'll just do it in ourheads. but here is the way the answerscome out. women say less than one in thenext month.

that doesn't mean they wantless than one; that means many of them--manyof them say zero, some say one and so to five. men--two, eight, can ask other questions from this, you could ask, "would you have sex with adesirable partner you have known--so somebody reallydesirable--for a year; women say yes,six months--unsure, week or [laughter]--and with men

you could get a majority goingto five minutes. this is all q &a, pen and pencil sort of things.some brave scientists have actually done experiments.and in one experiment somebody--i don't,you know, this is the sort of thing which you probablywouldn't do nowadays. this work has been done tenyears ago, where they have an incredibly attractive man and anincredibly attractive woman and they approach people on campus.they're not from campus;

they're actors brought in.and they go to people, to strangers,and they say, "i've been noticing you aroundcampus. i find you very attractive.would you go out with me tonight?would you come over to my apartment tonight?would you go to bed with me tonight?"the experiment you wouldn't think anybody would've done hasbeen done, and women about--a very attractive man,over half of the women

approached say,"yeah, i will." very few agree to this ["wouldyou come to my apartment tonight?"], and nobody agrees tothis ["would you go to bed with me tonight?"].for men, the data are like this, they go up to there andthen up to there . in this study,the twenty five percent of males who said "no" apologizedprofusely, and they said,"oh, you know, my fiancã©'s in town,and [unintelligible]."

what about behavior?well, you--if we're interested in sex differences,you can't actually figure out what people want,male female differences, by looking at simply at theaverage number of times people have sex because if males andfemales have different priorities,then heterosexual sex is a compromise between two groups ofpeople with competing interests. what's a more clear reflectionthen is gay sex between two women or between two men,because then you get a pure

reflection of sexual, the data here tend to be very messy.again, they're survey studies but by and large every studydone tends to find a difference in the expected direction,which is that females tend to be--lesbians tend to be muchmore monogamous than gay men. some studies prior to aids –this was many years ago – found gay men to be extremelypromiscuous, often having over a hundred orover a thousand partners. you wouldn't find this sort ofpromiscuity in females.

and a way to think about thisis, what these gay men are doing is exactly what your averageheterosexual man would do if he had that degree of willingfemales who were as willing as he was.and this all suggests that there's some sort of differencealong lines expected in sexual choosiness in humans.what about sexual attractiveness?what about mate preference? what do we find attractive?well, unlike the choosiness studies, here we actually havesome pretty good cross-cultural one study, for instance,was done in 10,000 people from thirty-seven countries,asking people, "who do you want to be with?"and there are different studies, some of them asking,"who do you want to marry?" other studies,"who do you want as a mate? who do you want as a sexualpartner?" and one main finding is kind ofreassuring, everybody likes kindness and intelligence,or at least everybody says they

like kindness and intelligence.these are valued pretty highly. but at the same time,there are sex differences. females focus more on power andstatus and more on interest in investing in children.and think about that from an evolutionary point of view andit makes sense. it doesn't matter hugely,from the standpoint of reproduction,how old the man is. the difference between fifteenand twenty-five and thirty-five and forty-five may matter a lotfor his status in the community,

his physical strength,his lifespan but from the standpoint of his sperm itdoesn't matter hugely. later on there's a drop off andit does begin to matter, but it doesn't matter hugely.what does matter is his interest in being a good father,in protecting you from predation,from murder, from assault by other people,and in taking care of the kid. women's brains are wired up tofind males with those properties.similarly, males focus a little

bit differently.they're more interested in all of these things,but also on the ability to have, from an evolutionary point of view, there's actually a verybig difference between a twenty-year old and a fifty-yearold, from a male standpoint lookingat a female, because the one can have offspring and the othercannot. so, this is a difference.but what i want to focus more on right now is back to anothersimilarity.

everybody likes beauty.and i want to devote a little bit of this lecture to talkingabout physical beauty. physical beauty,as these beautiful people say, is a she--she's like a big model, a supermodel,maybe even a super-supermodel--points out thearbitrariness of finding her devastatingly beautiful.famous actor points out how frustrating it is that peopleonly ignore his accomplishments and focus merely on his physicalbeauty.

this is very what is beauty? what does this mean we say wefind--you know, yeah, they really are veryattractive people. what is it about that thatmakes you look and say, "yeah, that makes sense?"well, we kind of know the answer.we know some universals. beauty seems to signal twothings. beauty seems to signal youth--imean, not pre-school youth, but youth like sexually maturebut young.

and so the cues we findbeautiful are cues to that – large eyes, full lips,smooth, tight skin. beauty signals something is a marker for health. and so what we find beautiful,things like the absence of deformities, clear eyes,unblemished skin, intact teeth – that's verybig – and an average face. and that last part might seem alittle bit strange. what would be so good about anaverage face? and there are different answersto that, but one answer is,

an average face,on average, should be considered attractive becauseany sort of deformities are variations from the average.and if you average every face together, you get a facethat--where nothing bad has happened to it.there's no distortion, there's no one gets older, the face gets less symmetricaland so on. average-ness seems to factorout all the bad things that could happen.good theory.

how do we know it's true?well, there's a photo roster that comes--that i have accessto for this class. so, i can look at each of yourpictures, and i will make you a bet about who has the mostbeautiful face in this course. the bet is it would be all ofyou. aw.wouldn't it be funny if i shouted out somebody's name?and you know, a) i don't have the energy todo this, and b) it would probably violate four hundreddifferent privacy laws or

whatever.but if i took all those faces and morphed them together,i would get a very pretty face. and how do we know this?well, people have done this. they've done it with--so lookat the faces from here to here. and if you are like mostpeople, you see as you're going to the right they're lookingbetter and better and better. it's subtle,but it's actually not so subtle that babies don't notice it.the same researchers who constructed this--theseface--these average caucasian

faces,male and female, have shown these faces tobabies and find that babies that prefer to look at averagefaces--suggesting that our preference for averaging is notthe product of culture but rather is to some extenthard-wired. these two people don't exist.they're computer composites. they're a heavily averaged maleface and a heavily averaged female face, both from acaucasian data sample. they don't look bad right?they're good faces.

they don't the hair, for instance,is identical--so they don't--you can't use hair cues.but they're pretty attractive. but the story of attractivenessdoes not end there. how do you get a better thanaverage face? what can you do to these faces,these average faces, and make them look even better?well, i'll have a vote. who's prettier?who says the one on the right? who says the one on the left?left is average face,

and there might be variation inthis class. there are definitely variationsin what people favor. this is a feminized version ofthe average face where certain prototype features were mademore feminine than average to cue this as more of a sexualobject. this is more complicated. who thinks face a is moreattractive? who thinks face b is moreattractive? okay.most people like face b.

the exception is,and this has been statistically replicated, i think,now in three labs. face a is preferred by womenwho are ovulating, and the story about why iscomplicated and will take us beyond the scope of this class.but currently the idea is that this is a really handsome guy;he's young, he's healthy, he looks strong,good provider; this guy is really hot,and he may not be a good provider and everything,but i'm sure he has wonderful, the idea is that one should have sex with him and then havehim raise the kids. we've talked so far aboutthings, about sex and sexual attractiveness largely from abiological perspective, looking at universals.and in fact, there are some universals inwhat men and women have in common and what distinguishesmen and women. and in some of the sexdifferences, particularly related to aggression and matepreference, seem to be

universal.they seem to show up to some extent across every culture youlook at and, hence, are likely candidates forbiological adaptations. but there are other sexdifferences that people are aware of where the origins arefar less clear. and i think that intelligent,reasonable people could disagree about this,but i am personally quite skeptical about the extent towhich these reflect biology. i'll mention them to capturethe debate, but the thing to

keep in mind here is thatbiology, natural selection,is one reason why the men in this class might differ from thewomen in this class. but of course,there are other, social, factors.babies are treated differently. there have been many studieswhere you take a baby and swaddle it in blue and describeit as a boy versus swaddle it in pink and describe it as a girl,and people treat it differently when they think it's a boy thanwhen they think it's a girl.

you're treated differently matters a lot--and there's study after study suggesting,for instance, that when you send an email ora job application or a paper to a scientific journal,it matters whether it has the name john smith on it versus thename joan smith. it matters because people havedifferent expectations and different reactions to malesversus females. some if you may have firsthandexperience with this if you're a man with a name that could betaken as a woman's name –

friend of mine is named lynn,and often people think he's female – or if you're a womanwho has a name that could be taken as a man's name,or if you have a name sufficiently foreign to westernears that people can't easily'll often find people saying, "oh," people arehigh-fiving each other there --you'll often find some degreeof surprise and some degree of people saying,"oh my, i didn't know you were a i will treat you

differently."and so, these social factors could play a role in explainingsome male and female differences.also, there are the facts of gender here something very interesting happensdevelopmentally. males segregate with othermales; females segregate with otherfemales--for a period lasting, it depends on the culture,but say from age four to age eleven.this self-segregation might

exaggerate and enhance sexdifferences. it might be,for instance, as eleanor maccoby hasproposed, that boys are slightly more aggressive than girls.but then boys go into groups of boys, and that enhances andexaggerates their aggression while the girls' non-aggressivebehavior is enhanced and exaggerated in different ways bythem falling into girls' groups. so, what sort of differencesare we talking about when we say we're not sure of their cause?well, one difference is one in simon baron-cohen wrote a wonderful book called theessential difference where he argues that men are by natureless empathetic, women are by nature moreempathetic, and that this is a core sex, what do you know? well, what's the source forthis? one thing is men are moreviolent. simon baron-cohen describesviolence as the ultimate act--murder as the ultimate actof a lack of empathy.

there's some relationshipbetween how much testosterone you have in your system and howsocial you are – more testosterone,less social. boys tend to be less empatheticthan girls, and there's some evidence, though it's notconclusive, that boys do worse than girlson social cognition theory of mind tasks.that's what i have here, though that is quite debated.and the biggest effect, which isn't debated at all,is problems with empathy,

problems of social cognition,are much more frequent in men than in, these disorders like autism, asperger's syndrome,conduct disorder and psychopathy are predominatelymale. and simon baron-cohen suggeststhat--basically, he has this slogan where hesays, "to be a man is to suffer from a particularly mild form ofautism." that males are just sociallyclueless relative to women. final bit of trivia--this issimon baron cohen,

who is a very famousdevelopmental psychologist, but his cousin sasha baroncohen is far more famous. another debate is a debateconcerning sex differences in the capacity for math andscience. a few years ago there used tobe a president of harvard known as larry summers.there are so many reasons to hiss at this point.and larry summers is no longer president of harvard for variousreasons, but one reason was this quote,which included in his

speculations about sexdifferences, " the special case of science and engineering,there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly ofthe variability of aptitude..." he argued, or suggested,that the under-representation of women in the sciences inacademia is because of an intrinsic aptitude difference;women are, on average, less biologically predisposedto do this sort of reasoning. the variability point is thathe wasn't suggesting that there's just a difference onaverage.

in fact, he agreed that theaverage skills of men and women are identical.the claim is that males show more variation.this means that there are more male retarded people and moremales who are just horribly bad at this, but it also means thereare more male geniuses. and he suggested that thisplays a role. this, as you can imagine,proved to be an extremely controversial claim,and rather than go through it – because it would take me aclass to treat the pros and cons

of this argument responsibly –i'm going to refer you to a wonderful debate between stevepinker, who was quoted earlier,and liz spelke who's one of the big infant cognition people.and we spoke a lot about her work earlier on in the course.and they have a wonderful debate between two of thesmartest people i know on the edge,which was done at harvard about a year ago and is on video here. so, if you're interested in sexdifferences and different

theories about the mechanism ofsex differences, this is where you should go.finally, and a final topic, some of us, about 98%--and thenumbers are very difficult to pin down.maybe it isn't 98%; maybe it's ninety-seven,maybe it's ninety-nine. let's say 98% of women aresexually attracted to men. about 96% of men are sexuallyattracted to women. and the numbers vary and it'svery difficult to estimate it you could imagine,

there are all sorts of problemswith this sort of research. but there's some proportion ofthe population that's exclusively homosexual--someproportion of the population of men who are only attracted toother men, some proportion of thepopulation of women who are only attracted to other women.when people talk about sexual orientation here,it's important to realize we are not talking here aboutbehavior. there are all sorts of reasonswhy somebody might have sex with

somebody of the same know, they might be bored. you may, you know,be experimenting, be whatever.the question is, "what do you want to do?"all things being equal, what sort of person--if youcould be sexually or romantically involved with anyperson, who would it be? and most people areheterosexual. there's a considerable amountthat varies cross-culturally of people who are bisexual.but the real puzzle is

exclusive, why? well, nobody knows.we know some reasons, some answers are probably notright. it is not the case,almost certainly – maybe there are some exceptions –but it is not the case that people choose their sexualorientation. i'm not going to do this inthis room, but if you asked people to raise their hands asto how many people decided who to become sexually attracted to,very few people would.

part of the issue rises in thefact that people who are gay are often extremely discriminatedagainst, and they have no wish to be gay.they might even think it's morally wrong for them to bethat way. that makes it implausible thattheir sexual orientation is a conscious choice.what about experience after puberty?so, there is a view that keeps coming up over and over again inthe literature that people who are gay have in some sense beenseduced by people,

by other people--or somethinghappened to them afterwards. this seems unlikely.there are in particular the seeds of sexual orientationlater on in life seem to show up quite early in life.again, the studies are sort of suspect, but there's some reasonto believe that people who are gay and people who are straightare different long before they hit puberty with regard to theirsexual and romantic fantasies. you would now expect me to say,"well, being gay and being straight is built's hard-wired.

none of these stories seemright. it seems to be built in."and the answer to that is, sort, if you do the standard behavioral genetic tests,and you by now know how to do them--you'd look for differencesbetween monozygotic and dizygotic twins,you'd do the adoption comparison--you know adoptedsiblings and biological siblings.the answer is yes, you find that there is somesort of genetic predisposition

towards homosexuality.but it can't be entirely reason why it can't be entirely genetic is,if i'm gay and i have an identical twin,the odds that my identical twin will be gay--it's about fiftypercent. those are very high oddscompared to the average in the population.but if it was truly genetic, entirely genetic,what should the number be? a hundred percent – he's myclone.

he should be exactly as i am.and it's not. so, we know then that some sortof experience, possibly prenatal experience,is what explains it. why is it so – i said beforethis is a huge puzzle – why is it such a huge puzzle?well, exclusive homosexuality is an evolutionary mystery.again, do not think that this carries any moral weight to it.what it does mean though is that it doesn't seem to followas a biological adaptation. the puzzle is not why is itthat some men have sex with men.

that's not a big puzzle.maybe they have sex with men as some sort of recreational thingsor pair bonding or whatever. that's not the puzzle.the puzzle is why are there some men who don't want to havesex with women? similarly, why are there somewomen who don't want to have sex with men?from an evolutionary adaptive standpoint, you would think thatthe genes that give rise to such a behavior would be weeded outbecause creatures with that behavior typically,putting aside modern

technology, don't haveoffspring. and that's what makes it such apuzzle. so, your reading response forthis week is "solve that puzzle."i know i said early on in the course that reading responseswould be really easy and just require you reciting backthings, but that proved to be tooboring. so, just solve this deepest ofall puzzle. the thing in brackets at theend is very important.

your account,whatever it is, should bear some relationshipto the facts as discussed in lectures and readings.we have about five more minutes. any questions or thoughts?yes? student:i like your leather jacket. professor paul bloom:thank you very much. she likes my leather jacket.any questions or thoughts, just like that one?no. yes?student:

my question's not exactly likethat one, but in other animals do they--is there similar dataon other species? professor paul bloom: onsexual preferences? that's a very good questionbecause certainly your answer to the origin – give me two moreminutes – certainly your answer about the origin ofsexual preference in humans will be informed by the question ofcross-species data. what we do know is that thereare many animals that engage in homosexual behavior;they engage in sex with members

of their own sex.what i don't know is whether you get exclusive homosexualbehavior. so, i don't know what the rateis in nonhuman primates, for instance,of primates who do not want to have sex with members of theopposite sex. okay, i'll see you allwednesday.

Jumat, 28 April 2017

sex news

do not let children watch this episode ofthe american life league report. [intro]when most people think of plannedparenthood, they think of the babies it kills throughabortion, or the mountains of birth control it dispenses. but another side to planned parenthood, whichshould be equally considered,

sex news

sex news, is its obsession with sex. sex toys, sex-contests, sex-balloons,

penis-shaped balloons, penis lollipops, penis cupcakes, vagina cakes, vagina macaroons, vagina fruit-rollups, giant vagina costumes … all of these things play a central role inplanned parenthood’s community activities.but what’s truly shocking, is how these pervertsare allowed unfettered access to our children

while raking in government cash to sell themunrestrained sex.oh, planned parenthood will claim that what they teach kids is “scientific”and “age appropriate,” but the fact of the matter is that “ageappropriate” is a standard concocted by planned parenthood itself so that it can sell pornography to kids as“science.” why would they do this?just as the goalof a drug dealer is to make drug-addicts, planned parenthood’s goal is to make sex-addicts, and they follow the same business model. forinstance, planned parenthood’s gateway-drug is masturbation.

one of its primary resources for 10-year-oldsis a book called “it’s perfectly normal,” and it sells masturbation to kids with graphicimages of naked boys and girls, boys and girls masturbating, men and women having sex, and even things like this … and this … and this.if a dirty, old man showed these things to a 10-year-old kid in the park, he'd be arrested. but when planned parenthood shows them tokids in a classroom, it gets government money.

but that’s just the start. once they get to high school … you know, right about the time they hit puberty… planned parenthood tells vulnerable teensstimulating and intimate things about sex. just look at what its website for teens says.thelink to “our bodies,” takes teens to a page that provides graphic displays of genitals, and tells them about how pleasurable the clitorisis, and how pleasurable breasts are to touch and massage. this section on “sex andmasturbation” encourages boys and girls to masturbate,

and tries to dispel any embarrassment or hesitationin trying it. it also describes orgasms, and encouragesanal sex and oral sex.this section titled lgbtq tells young teens that "all sexual orientationsare perfectly normal.” the page on homosexuality titled, “comingout,” displays a teenage boy in an intimate pose with what appears to be… an adult man. this section explains how to have gay sex,using a condom, dental dam, and even plastic wrap.and for their viewing pleasure, plannedparenthood’s got a few things for teens to watch. [boy's voice] there's a penison my body. awesome. [alien voice] being gay is a little like beingleft-handed.

[girl in bed] any protection?[man in bed] yeah. of course. [girl in bed] amen. [girl's voice] now this is a clitoral hood.see it? [rapper] ♪ rappy-rap, betta ring-a-rang-dong.this is how the penis and vagina get along. ♪ go penis! go penis! [singing] ♪ twinkie, trumpet, gherkin, captainwinky, shlong. ♪ [female cartoon] time to go inside and findout. [male cartoon] inside the vagina? who-ha-hoo-hoo.

[female cartoon] calm down, pete. you're leakingagain. [michael] it’s bad enough that plannedparenthood is conditioning children to engage in sexual activity with the kind of stuff that we’ve just shownyou. but planned parenthood of upper hudson’syouth program … which includes children as young as 13 … requires participants to be exposed to sexual-deviancyon parade – literally! planned parenthood of upper hudson’s applicationform for the s.t.a.r.s. program for high school kids

states that students, as young as 13, “arerequired to attend capital pride.”but this isn't just planned parenthood of upperhudson. as shown in this memo from 1969, planned parenthood'snational goal is to restructure the family and encourage increased homosexuality as asick form of population control. and that's why they expose our kids to stufflike this:[♪ techno music ♪]… is it any wonder that 1 in 4 teenage girls hasan std? all this exposure to sex takes place beforegraduating from high school! when these kids go to college, they’ll bebombarded with sex-themed parties put on by planned parenthood vox groups.

here’s a brief look at some of the differentways planned parenthood spills its pornographic material to this posterof a penis monster attacking a naked girl in a condom this image from avox party something that planned parenthood considers “medically accurate?”here’splanned parenthood doing its part in reducing men and women to sex objects.a party withno pants and free safe-sex kits? that just screams date-rape. maybe a planned parenthoodsex workshop about pleasure, desire, and orgasms is more age-appropriate. at least your sons and daughters can enjoythe vulva puppet show and leave with a free sex-toy.what plannedparenthood education booth would be complete

without a fisting-kit for homosexual collegeand teenaged students?but hey … america can sleep well knowing that its tax moneyis being put to good use, right?this is what planned parenthood is all about. get the kids addicted to sex, so it can sellthem birth control. when teens catch a sexually transmitted disease,it sells them testing services. and when a young girl gets pregnant, it sellsher an abortion. this isn’t education, it’s indoctrination intended to drum upplanned parenthood’s abortion business. help us break the cycle. go to american life league’s action centerto find out what you can do to stop the madness.for

american life league, i'm michael hichborn.

topics sex

hi community of awesome! i'm ava jae, andthis is bookishpixie. so today i want to talk about a topic thatfrequently comes up when discu...