TMI Tuesday

From the archives:

1. Do you think being a sex worker is as legitimate a work option as being an accountant?

Good lord yes. But this is a crappy question because sex work and accounting aren't really in the same sphere of types of work, so it's any easy one to poo-poo.  "Oh sure, accountants do your taxes.  What do sex workers do?"  Better comparison might be to a therapist.  I think a lot of people who seek out prostitutes are doing it for reasons other than just wanting to have sex, honestly, but even if that's the case, the reasons why they need to pay for sex are complicated.  They need help in some way.  So actually, I guess accountant isn't such a terrible comparison: if you're no good at taxes, you seek an accountant.  If you're no good at getting people to have sex with you, you seek a sex worker.

But what it boils down to is that the opinions many people have about sex work are either moral or they're premised on assumptions.  The moral aspect, I can't really argue with: I disagree with your morality, but if you genuinely believe that sex is something which should only happen in certain ways, then fine.  We still allow bartenders and liquor distributors to have legitimate employment, and many people (and I'm not just talking about people of certain faiths) don't believe that alcohol should be used.

The assumptions are more problematic.  Many people assume that sex workers are all being exploited.  But that's not a feature of sex work, that's a feature of the system which keep sex workers from being able to enjoy the protections of legitimate work.  If I locked an accountant in my basement, fed them bread and water, and forced them to do my books for free, that would be exploitation, but it wouldn't be because accounting is an exploitative job.  Yes, there are certainly problems with exploitation in sex work, and there is perhaps a case to be made that sex work lends itself to exploitation, but that's an argument for increasing the protections for sex workers, not for shoving them out into the cold.

Politics aside, sex work isn't called "the oldest profession" for nothing.  Yes, even that name is problematic, but people have been doing it for as long as there has been a concept of "work" to do, and probably before that.  It's every bit as legitimate as any other form of work.  And accountants, I love you because I can't fucking do my taxes.

I'll put away my soapbox now.

2. Which of these rules would you follow if your lover had to have it followed in order to be aroused:
a. wear socks will having sex
b. have the lights on during sex
c. have the TV playing, volume up while having sex
d. the room must be in complete darkness to have sex

I could live with all of these things.  The TV one might be the one I had the most problem with, mostly because it's distracting, but if we discussed it, I would deal with it.  I don't need complete quiet to be aroused.

I have had sex with a few people, guys mostly, who wanted the lights either on or off.  I think "off" is more often than not because they're not comfortable with themselves, latent shame about sex or about their body.  But I've never had anyone who could only be aroused with the lights a certain level.  There are fun things to do in both cases: lights on and you can have some visual stimulation (and I hate to say it but this is more fun when I'm with a girl that with a guy: girls are just more fun to look at, sorry guys).  Lights off and there's the whole tactile thing.  I would say that in balance I've had way more sex with the lights on than off, but neither bothers me.

The socks thing... I get it.  I mean, if my partner is turned on by me wearing socks to bed, that's like the easiest costume play ever.  And if they have to wear socks, I'm not into feet so I don't care.

3. You must plan an evening of sex with your lover. Tell us what you’ve planned for the evening.

Soft light in the bedroom, water bottles by the bed, lube and toys all over, and I've probably stripped the bedclothes and may have laid something down so we don't have to deal with wet spots (with Sveta, that's definitely something I do more often than not; we keep towels nearby at all times in case things get frisky).  If we're really going crazy, maybe something edible to share.

I'm a bad romantic.  But I can tell you horror stories about various supposedly romantic setups which make me totally fine with my lack of prep in the romance department.  Rose petals are a terrible idea; they stain bedclothes and they aren't really all that interesting once the going gets going.  Massage oils are nice and all, but I've broken out from poorly-chosen ones in the past, so while we do plenty of oiling up sometimes, it's always with safe stuff.  And honestly, "oiling up" leaves everything sticky.  Getting a nice massage on doesn't leave you clinging to the sheets.

I had a romantic evening with a guy once who decided that life was porn and so he was going to oil me up.  I'm not going to lie: the massage felt great, and when he started fingering me after having been over every inch of my skin with his hands, I came like nobody's business.  And then we fucked, and it was terrific, just thrusting and cumming, until he tried to flip me over and he couldn't get a grip, and I realized that what I had felt as a nice warm glow was actually sweat and massage oil gluing me to the bed, and it was awkward.  And then we got back into it and it was fine again, but afterward, I had to take a shower and we had to change the sheets.  And I still felt slightly oily for the rest of the evening, which went from being a pleasant feeling to being kind of disgusting, like I had grease all over my skin.  Still, the sex was great, and he was very good in bed in general, so I forgave him.

And I haven't even mentioned candles.  Fire safety, children.  If you're going to do it by candlelight, the candles should be placed far away from the bed, they should be the kind which won't fall over or melt all over everything, and they probably shouldn't be scented like anything much.  And you should get used to the idea that you won't be able to see as well as you think you will.  Sure, in movies they set up 8 million candles all around the bed and it looks like that scene in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom where Indy gets taken over by Kali, and it looks totally romantic and sexy, but in reality you won't be able to see shit, which may not be a problem until you have to get up.

I once almost set a building on fire because I was young and stupid and put a candle too close to the bed and we, in our enthusiasm, knocked it over, and hot wax went all over the floor and caught fire because we didn't pay attention, and then my partner said, "Hey, what's that smell?" and it was about ten seconds away from catching the bed on fire and then we, if we made it out, would have had to stand around on the front lawn, naked, while firefighters judged us.  Which would have been really awkward because I was in no way legal.  Nothing kills the mood like having to put out a fire on the floor of your love nest.  His erection was gone, I was terrified, and we almost gave it up, but then we both laughed about it and got back into it, by electric light this time.  Not that it was such a great loss; the initial enthusiasm had masked the fact that he wasn't all that great in bed, and it had been mostly about him with very little foreplay, but hey, rough and tumble sex and so forth, but when we got back into it and he got back into me, he continued to act with that first rough and tumble urge and I didn't cum before he did, and he didn't offer any help in that regard.  Ah, my misspent yoot.

4. Rule: If one of you is in the mood for sex and the other is not, you give the other 24 hours to ‘get in the mood’ before masturbating. Would this work in for you or in your relationship–why or why not?

 It would definitely depend on the relationship.  I did abstain from masturbation for a time, not because of a rule like this but because of a rule which was that I wasn't allowed to masturbate.  Yeah, that relationship was fucked up.  But there was plenty of sex so I pretended like it wasn't a big deal, which it totally was and I should never have been in the relationship even though... whatever.

I can understand the rationale, I guess.  If you're getting what you need from yourself, you don't have any impetus to get what you need from your partner and thus they don't get what they need.  I guess I could see it if that was a concern, although I'm not sure that's the way to address the concern.  It also seems like it's punishing the person who wants it more than the person who doesn't.

I've gone without masturbation before too when we were saving it up for each other.  I've been away from my lover for a period and, to heighten the eventual reunion, we've both said we wouldn't masturbate before we saw each other again.  That can be electric.  But I'm not sure this rule would work for me.  I don't think the ready availability of masturbation affects my desire for sex most times, and when it does, I'm usually the one who's not in the mood for sex so it wouldn't be fair of me to deny my partner a release.

5. Apparently, even though it is the year 2016, some folks still have a “number” that delineates another person from being normal and liking sex versus being promiscuous. What is THAT number for you? According to a recent U.K. report more than 15 sexual conquests for a man can be off-putting, while more that 14 sexual encounters for a woman may give a potential suitor pause.

I am a fucking slut, or promiscuous, or whatever you want to call it.  I think any number is fine, if not "normal" (normal just means status quo, and very few things are actually "normal").  And the language of this question is annoying: it's "conquests" for a man, but "encounters" for a woman.  Fuck that shit.  Go out and have as much sex as you can, or want, or whatever.  I don't keep count of my own partners, but I've probably had an order of magnitude more that any "reasonable" number that people who care about those things might posit.

And what's the difference between liking sex and being promiscuous?  They're not even on the same scale.  Promiscuous implies number of partners.  Liking sex implies enjoyment.  You can have one partner and like sex just as much if not more than someone who's had hundreds of partners, and promiscuity is no indication of how much you enjoy sex.

Fuck this question.  There is no number, and I will cheerfully "conquest" a virgin or someone who's had more partners than I have, if we're both down for it.

Bonus: How was your weekend?

Long, annoying, and not really a weekend.  I've had a rough few weeks.  I don't get any particular days off, so "weekend" means very little to me.  And since I'm writing this ages before it will actually be posted, it's pointless to talk about it anyway.