Daily Archives: August 12, 2008

Satisfy your lover! And other ridiculous internet myths

This is a big enough topic to be its own series. So while the atheism stuff will still be here, I’m going to concentrate on this for a bit, because it’s starting to annoy me. Fair warning: I am going to talk about sex in a fairly explicit, matter of fact manner. If that bothers you, you may want to stop reading now.

Okay. First and foremost: I am an educator for a rather well known community clinic that specializes in family and reproductive health. The following is excerpted from rather frank discussions with groups of women aged 16-45, as well as my own personal observations.

So there I was, stumbling around, looking through the adult pages, when I came across a site promising to improve the reader’s cunnilingus skills. “Interesting….” I thought, “let’s read on.” The article went on to advise foreplay. “So far so good…us women like foreplay….” But then it made a fatal mistake. It started talking about specifics. How to massage the clitoris, how to tease the labia, how to slowly introduce your mouth in the mix (not that that’s a bad thing, any of it!). So what’s the problem? you ask. Specifics are good. They tell us what we should be doing. Well, yes. They do. Unfortunately, they tell you what you should be doing for some women.

Here’s my objection to websites like this. Specifics are good. Unfortunately, they change from woman to woman. You want to know how to best please your lover orally? Seriously? Ask her (or him). No, not “what do you want,” because I know what you’re going to get back is a blush and silence. Some evening when you’re both relatively open to it, try a few different things. And each step of the way, ask “do you like it better when I do it like this…. or like this?” That’ll give you a way to adjust accordingly in the future. And keep doing that. Adjust your speed. Use one finger then two. Don’t just ask which she likes better, watch her reactions. Be patient. Be willing to learn. Be willing to recognize that, while you’re confident you can satisfy your lover, there may be ways you can satisfy her/him even more.

There is no magic technique. Each unique woman and man has their own tempo, their own combination. If it’s important enough to you to satisfy your lover, then it’s important enough to bear that in mind. People are not cookie cut outs. They’re individuals with individual likes, dislikes and turn ons. The best road to sexual nirvana is paved with trust and communication. Yes, there are some times where you “just know.” But don’t be discouraged if a little direction is needed. And remember the journey is at least half the fun.

To be continued.

Acknowledging spirituality

One of the things atheists tend to shy away from is human spirituality. I think this tends to cause some rather uncomfortable shuffling of ideas and sidestepping of certain issues. So let’s address it now.

Human beings are by their very nature spiritual. I wonder if theists would resist atheists quite so fervently if we were more willing to admit that simple fact. As an atheist, I see no contradiction in that statement and the assertion that there is no god. Our spirituality was not implanted by some designer or breathed into us by an omniscient being. No, spirituality does not require belief in god. All that is required is a basic understanding of chemistry and the hormonal and electro magnetic responses that take place in our own bodies.  I’m currently reading a rather brilliant book on the subject: The Mystical Mind: Probing the Biology of Religious Experience.

Dr. Newberg’s work is well researched and documented and explained in clear terms which show unequivocally the link between our biological selves and our spiritual selves.

Like any emotion, spirituality is not lessened by having its origins exposed. If anything, that spirituality is validated with Dr. Newberg’s research. Spirituality is real. We experience it. And like any other emotion, it is one which, as reasoned beings, we should understand and exercise with clarity and forethought.

I am aware that many atheists deny any feeling of spirituality. They, too, are correct. What each side of the argument fails to recognize is that emotion is subjective. That depth and strength of feeling is dependent upon the person experiencing that emotion. Love, sadness, hate, spirituality, joy…all these emotions may be felt in varying degrees from one person to the next. It is not inconceivable that we feel some more than others.


Judges are only “activist” when we disagree.

It’s interesting how that works, isn’t it? Abortion, immigration….now same sex marriage. Let us take the case of California Supreme Court cheif justice Ronald George.

After a lifelong career of being a staunch advocate of tough crime legislation and the death penalty for which he received overwhelming conservative acclaim, the jurist has, with one lengthy decision, completely lost his conservative base. I am referring, of course, to the landmark case of Woo v. Lockyer et al. (6 combined cases), the decision which shocked nearly everyone…in most cases happily.

Since that time, Mike Spence, anally clenched head of the California Republican Assembly, has promised to work to get the conservative judge removed from the bench.

“Absolutely, Ron George should be thrown out for voting for gay marriage,” said Mike Spence, president of the conservative California Republican Assembly. “He has a very radical view of what’s a family.” [sic] Spence said his group and others will formally organize after the November election.

Obviously Mr. Spence has a difficult time understanding the difference between a vote and a decision. The court did not “vote for” gay marriage. They interpreted the state constitution and came to the decision, based on the 1948 Perez v. Sharp decision allowing interracial marriage. Interestingly, the people decrying that decision as “activist” belonged to the same groups that are now frothing against gay marriage. And just as now with interracial marriage… at some point in the future, people will look back in consternation, wondering why the big uproar.

I am somewhat in awe of Justice George. He’s spent his career building his reputation and credibility. It’s sad that, among the people whose support and respect he’s earned over the years, one decision can reverse all of it. At the same time, he faced that unflinchingly and still objectively interpreted the law to a decision that, while he may not personally support it, will bring the greatest amount of freedom to the majority of the people. And that is what our society is supposed to be all about.