AskFannie: Concerning Condoms!

Dear Fannie,

I’m a 22 year old straight girl and I just started dating one of my best friends (I know… smart move). We’ve been really good friends for a long time, but this whole couple thing is new to me. The other night he was over and we started making out heavily. He wanted to have sex but I didn’t have a condom and neither did he. He thought I was on the pill so he asked if we could do it without it... and we did. I mean, it’s totally safe because he’s been tested and everything, and the next day I immediately got a hold of emergency contraception. My question is should I tell him the whole story? And how do I bridge the topic of condoms?

Sex Among Friends Equals Lingering Y-chromosomes
SAFELY,

You just proved that even informed people make very very stupid mistakes. Profoundly stupid mistakes. First, it isn’t “totally safe,” because unless your new BF hasn’t had any sexual contact in the past 6 months (which doesn’t seem likely from your trigger-happy description) that test means squat; not to mention the plethora of sexually-transmitted infections and viruses floating out there. Moreover emergency contraception is far from the safety net which popular myth would purport. According to the FDA:

“If one hundred women used ECPs correctly in one month, about two women would become pregnant after a single act of intercourse. If no contraception is used about eight women would become pregnant after a single act of intercourse.” [link]

I’ll put it in really simple terms, SAFELY. Emergency Contraception only reduces your risk of pregnancy by 75%. That means of 100 women who would have gotten pregnant, but took emergency contraception, twenty-five of them still would still have become pregnant. While “effective” by pharmaceutical standards; that’s hardly playing it safe.

I get that it can be hard for women to bring up contraception, and that contraception is largely centered around condom-use and therefore, largely in the control of men. But that just means, SAFELY, that you have to play twice as safe and be twice as strong, because it’s your body on the line. It’s only his checkbook.

The next time your ignoramus incubus tries to get into your insides, here’s a few tips for having a good romp in the hay without creating an heir:

1. Do something else! If you find yourself ill-equipped for a risk-averse coital connection, there are plenty of low-risk but highly pleasurable sex acts you can enjoy in the meantime! Suck him off, sit on his face, finger each other, 69, dry hump, use toys… the choices are endless.
2. Blue ball him. Men are dogs, and so… treat him like one. When your BF misbehaves, you gotta train him. A few unfulfilled trips to the orgasmic precipice will get it in his head that if he wants it, he’s got to play by your rules. And if you can’t take the unresolved tension, have Mr. Rabbit ready and waiting when you come home.
3. Keep condoms on hand. There’s no reason not to have condoms accessible and in abundance. There are plenty of organizations whom are more than happy to drown you in contraceptive paraphernalia. Your local Planned Parenthood or Family Planning clinic is bound to have resources. If you feel uncomfortable make a trip out of it, and solicit a few of your friends to join you!
4. Tell him! So many couples have such problems when it comes to boudoir communication. Honesty is prime. Because the more you fake it, the less it’s going to improve. So grow a spine and tell him that playing safely is the only way you gonna play!

Fiercely,
Fannie

send your questions to askfannie@belowthebelt.org

(...to the full post)

The Three Best Ways to Contract HIV

Since this column is intended to address HIV/AIDS issues, and most of us have had the ‘safe-sex’ rules ingrained in us from various resources, it might be more useful to approach this topic from a slightly different angle. Instead of going over how to avoid HIV for the umpteenth time, lets review on a couple of the more common behaviors or assumptions that can contribute to the “surprise” HIV diagnosis.

These are all examples I have heard from men who are newly diagnosed, so hopefully others can learn from these mistakes:

#1: Go to a bath house

To put it bluntly, a bathhouse is the perfect storm of drunken clubbers, meth heads, sex addicts, closet cases, an assortment of out-of-towners ‘on the down-low’ and the occasional stray ‘good boy’ looking to get laid… all coming together to create a veritable Petri dish of nastiness. There is a very good reason you might feel a little nasty and dirty walking home in yesterday’s club clothes at 5:00 AM from a place like this -- it’s because you have been a nasty, naughty little slut, and that tingle you are starting to notice in your throat (or on your dick or in your ass) is probably the beginning of a happy new colony of disease, delighted in your decision to look for quick, easy sex.

If you do insist on going, just assume the person you are having sex with is HIV-positive. If you expect men participating in these venues to announce or otherwise make you aware of any health related issues they might be experiencing, then you would also be advised to make sure you have a good health insurance policy, a great doctor and you might as well bump up your life insurance policy while you’re at it. You can and certainly should ask about a person’s HIV status *every time* before engaging in sex, but if you are participating in anonymous sex, don’t expect to get an honest answer every time. The reason it’s called ‘anonymous’ is because you will probably never see the person again.

#2: Assume only bottoms will contract HIV

You can get HIV from topping and from blowing, so don’t say you were never warned. Guys hate it when I tell them they can get HIV from giving a blow job, but I am here to tell you it happens, and not just to me, but others that went through the same experience. Personally, when I was initially diagnosed with HIV, my Primary Infection Clinic doctor had a million questions for me, but the obvious one is how I contracted the disease. When I told him about “the worst sore throat of my life” after an oral sex episode a few months earlier, he rolled his eyes and let me know he’d heard this story before. The fact of the matter is, you CAN contract HIV through oral sex. Although considered “low risk”, oral sex is not “no risk”… and that was my very big mistake. This is nearly the same story I have heard from other newly infected men as well, and the conversation almost always includes something like, “I thought it was almost impossible to get HIV from oral sex/topping” -- which can be answered by, “It is almost impossible”. However, if you give enough blowjobs, top enough bottoms without a condom, or happen to run into a person with a very high viral load (usually due to lack of treatment, failed treatment or someone going through an initial primary infection period) the statistics start working against you.

#3: Assume Every HIV-positive man will disclose their HIV status

As shocking as it may sound, many men will lie outright, be overwhelmed with the initial shame and not know how to talk about it, or just refuse to be tested, so they cannot be labeled ‘poz’. Also, don’t forget that all-important three-month window, where a person can test negative, but be infectious and just not have developed the antibodies that the HIV test is looking for. “But they are legally required to tell me if they are HIV-positive!” you say? Of course they are, and it is also illegal for people to drive drunk…. so try to keep your head in the real world and not the idyllic world of consequence-free sex as you would like it to be.

One last tip: When you do ask someone his status, do it in a way that will probably give you a better chance at an honest answer. “Are you clean?” is not the right way. We are not living in the Old Testament and HIV-positive people don’t like being called “unclean” any more than you like to be called a “sodomite”. You are much more likely to get an honest answer if you use just a little positive affirmation when asking the question. Example: “You are really hot and I want to mess around with you anyway, but I always like to know if the person I am playing with is HIV-positive.” See how that works? And believe it or not, there are a lot of safe and fun things you can still do with the person, but that’s a topic for another column. :-)

(...to the full post)

AskFannie: Torrid Toy Story!

Dear Fannie,

My girl and I have been together for two years and are madly in love. She is very shy about sexuality, I am her first lover, and in her culture talking about sex is taboo. I hoped with time she would get more confident and open up to occaisonnal toy use. I have been tentative about steps in that direction-but I can't even get her inside an adult store. She says she is satisified sexually. I have let it go because everything else is going great. I am writing because I have found myself increasingly watching porn and recalling scenes while we are making love. This is the first time that I feel the need to keep something from her. First, is what I am doing normal? And if you have any advice on how I can help her open up a bit, that would be great.

Thanks.

Lackluster Lesbian Love Life

LLLL (or, L^4 as I prefer),

So, your toy-terrified-tribade is cramping your kink with her refusal to let you stick her with a silicon sex toy. Here is a prime example of how our conceptualization of sexuality is extremely limited. We focus on object choice: do you like boys or girls... or both. Poles or holes, cocks or fish, bussy or pussy. It all comes down to our junk. But there are so many other axes on which sexuality operates. Some people think about sex a lot, some never. Some people like having it with more than one person. Some people like to watch. Some people only have sex with themselves. By limiting ourselves to object choice, we lose out on a much larger and more interesting conversation.


There are two issues here, 1) Your girlfriend is sexually shy doesn't want to use toys, and you do; and 2) Your usage of porn/fantasies outside of the relationship is making you nervous. I think first we have to acknowledge that just because you have a sexual desire, doesn't mean your girlfriend is required to meet that need. However, the flip side of that coin is that if your girlfriend refuses to satisfy that need, I believe she should be willing to let you find a means of fulfilling that need (within reason of course). It should be made clear that while girl-on-girl all organic non-silicon action may satisfy your girlfriend, it doesn't bring you to the same place. Since you mention only occasional toy-play, it doesn't sound like you're being unreasonable, or that she'd have any reason to be jealous of your vibrator. But what it does make clear is that she's being a little selfish when it comes to matching your needs.

However, in your girlfriends defense, you mention that she comes from a very conservative upbringing, which has spilled into your boudoir. We can't all be the sexually experimental dynamos, like you, LLLL. She might very well want to get where you are and rival you as a sex toy goddess, but she probably has some deep-seeded issues she's working out. It's probably a big leap for her just to make it to "deviant sex." So the thought of making sex acts which she might already be getting a scolding for from the Jesus tape running in the back of her head, even MORE deviant might be just too much for her to handle at this point.

You asked if looking at porn while in a sexually unsatisfying relationship is normal? Um... yeah it is. It's normal to look at porn even if your girlfriend is a perfect sexual match for you. Consuming porn isn't somehow a substitute for a partner. Porn is a fantasy, with absurdly hot people doing absurdly hot things with other absurdly hot people. Of course you're going to want to watch! However, the layperson shouldn't expect that hooking up with one's real life partner should be the same as the hyper-hot surreality of porn. Those are just unrealistic expectations (unless, of course, you're a porn star...).

I'd advise first talking about the pleasure differential with your girlfriend. She has to realize that what she is doing isn't meeting all of your needs. And if that's the case, she should be willing to let you indulge in a few sessions with the bunny and a video rental. You might try and let her watch some of the porn you enjoy (although save the riskier stuff for later). Also, a way to get her more comfortable with sex toys in the bedroom is to use them on yourself. There is a big step between watching your girlfriend give you a live sex show, and ramming a dildo into your partner's pussoir. So, not actually handling the sex toys may make it easier for her to digest.

I hope the two of you can resolve your issues! Happy fucking!

++
fiercely,
fannie

send your questions to askfannie@belowthebelt.org

(...to the full post)

AskFannie: Bottoming Blues!

Dear Fannie,

I'm 24, gay, male, white... so the top of the gay pecking order. I've been with my boyfriend for a good 3 months. Like any normal gay couple, we fuck like bunnies, which is great... if only I liked it. My boyfriend is an out and out top, and I'm... I guess a bottom by default in that I don't like to top. The only problem is that I don't like bottoming either. It's not that I dislike bottoming. It's not excessively painful or anything... It just does nothing for me. And it's not just my boyfriend, I've taken it from plenty of guys, and it's the same with all of them. I'm afraid of telling my boyfriend that I don't like him topping me, since we've been having sex for 3 months, and I still haven't told him.

Not a Top, but Not Yet a Bottom


NATBNYAB,

First, Thanks for acknowledging your privileged space in the gay hierarchy! There's nothing better than a self-reflexive question to start the day! So your boyfriend is pitching to his heart's delight, but you're an unenthusiastic receiver (I think I'm mixing my sports metaphors). I think your question is really speaks to how gay sexuality is not only scripted, but constructed with traditional notions of masculinity. Also, kudos on the Britney reference, SO much better than the last person to use that same song as a pseudonym.

Not to beat the gender studies gong again (and I do believe it to be a gong), but the more I see of western gayness, the more I see it playing into patriarchy. This includes the way that we think about sex as exclusively penetrative. I find it strange how in gay male sexuality, your sexual identity isn't only constrained by object choice (i.e. men) but also our coital position (top or bottom). Being a top or bottom in many ways defines us in the same way that being gay defines us. And with those labels come a host of associations. Tops are butch and masculine, and bottoms are femme and fabulous. Obviously, plenty of people resist or refute these stereotypes, but chances are that if one see a flame burning bright, one also assumes that he assumes the position.

There's another lovely category that in some ways attempts to resist that binary, being the versatile. But, even that category presumes the preeminence of anal sex as the pinnacle of the homosex acts. To not be a top, but not like bottoming shatters the schema of gay sex.

The fact of the matter, NATBNYAB, anal sex is far from the end all be all of gay sex. It may be hard to believe, especially if you're ever seen gay porn, or listen to Pat Robertson (I swear, I learned more about gay sex from frantic anti-gay Christians than from anywhere else)... but there's a lot less butt sex that happens than most people would believe. I know many gay male couples who seldom perform anal sex, if at all. Don't let the categorization of certain sex acts as "foreplay" deceive you. Those "foreplay" acts can be far more satisfying than taking it up the chute could ever be.

As for telling your boyfriend that you don't like playing hide the sausage, believe it or not... he may already know. Unfortunately for gay men, it's much more difficult to fake an orgasm, than it is for women. So, unless your boyfriend is a complete idiot, or profoundly selfish (both possibilities), it won't be a complete shocker if you reveal your secret. Basically be clear that if he enjoys fucking you, he should know that you're doing him a favor. You don't gain any pleasure from it, so his pleasure debt to you mounts with each fuck. It's only fair that if he gets to fuck you, you should be able to request a pleasurable service from him as well. And if can't pleasure you at all... well you've got bigger problems.

++
fiercely,
fannie

send your questions to askfannie@belowthebelt.org

(...to the full post)

AskFannie: Raincoats in the Shower!

Dear Fannie

I'm a 20 year old hetero-flexible female. I've been in a relationship with my 22 year old bi boyfriend for two months now. Our sex life is great and I feel really good about our relationship. I was wondering, how do you know when it's okay to stop using condoms? We have a semi-open relationship agreement in that he can hook up with guys and I can hook up with girls, but we need to clear it with each other before anything goes down, and we always have to be safe when hooking up with outside people.

Concerning Condoms in Chicago


Dear CC,

So you and your kind-of-non-monogamous-bi-boyfriend want to start rubbing your nethers together without worrying about rubbers, ribbed or otherwise. This is a question all couples have to deal with, and it comes down to trust. Do you trust your boyfriend with your health, your future? Those are big questions for a 20 year old in a two-month old relationship, but they are relevant ones when you consider having unprotected sex. I assume that when you suggest not using condoms, you are or at least intend to be on the pill. I don't care how much you love someone; you should be dating them for much more than two months before getting preggers. As funny as Knocked Up was, it rarely turns out as rosy.


Not to disrespect your blossoming romance, but if you and your boyfriend are having sex with people outside your boyfriend, you should be using condoms/dental dams etc. Even though it's admirable y'all have these procedures for extra-relationship hooking up, sex-outside-relationships don't usually fall into place so neatly. Given the fact that you both are relatively young, I think its fair to say that its more likely for your boyfriend to bang a boy in an environment that isn't exactly conducive to calling his girlfriend and clearing it. This is compounded by any presence of alcohol/pot etc. that can hamper judgment. If you or your boyfriend are going to be hooking up with people, one-night-stand style, there is a very real possibility that the sexual encounter won't be as under control and in the parameters, as you may like.

While I think its admirable that you want to trust your boyfriend enough to know that he (and you) will use protection when having sex with other guys (and girls), it may not be entirely realistic. Assuming that you and your boyfriend will be together for an extended period of time, I would first wait through 2 months of monogamous sex before getting tested for various STIs, including HIV(this doesn’t include things like… making out, dry humping, mutual autoerotic masturbation) . According to the National HIV Testing Resources website, HIV tests can usually be administered 2-8 weeks after potential exposure, so if you can stomach it, have sex only with each other for those 8 weeks. If you both show up negative for HIV and the host of other STIs out there, then sure… go ahead and fuck freely (please, for the love of God, be on the pill).

If you are going to make this agreement work, both you and your boyfriend must be completely honest with each other about sex outside the relationship. I think it would be a good policy to go back to that waiting period of 2 months of monogamous protected sex, after either has sex with a third (or fourth) party, in order to be able ensure that both of you are clean. It’s also important to remember that women are far more vulnerable at contracting HIV in vaginal heterosexual sex than men, simply due to the anatomical nature of the vagina. It’s also much easier for a man to contract HIV while being penetrated, rather than doing the penetrating. So if your boyfriend like to bottom with guys, and he likes to have vaginal sex with you, I would be extra cautious. CC, I hope that helps you in your decision making. Happy fucking!

++
fiercely,
fannie

Send your questions to askfannie@belowthebelt.org

(...to the full post)

Masturbation in the Movies

We have long discussed the imbalance between male and female nudity in American film. Similarly (yet in an opposite vein), we have discussed the way women’s sexualities are rendered invisible, or at least outside their own control and purpose, in society and in film. And gender variant folk are relatively lucky to appear in film in any state of clothing. For sake of focus, however, I shall play mostly within a binary gender system for this entry.*

So, I’m not kidding when I express some excitement at the increasingly common vibrator jokes in comedy.

Sure, they’re poking fun—but this comedy only works because female pleasure is becoming valued, "female self pleasure" is consequently exiting the closet, and a male-proclaimed "natural" view of what sex should be is actually yielding (albeit slowly and through obliquely subversive means) to a more sex-positive "what works" approach. (Hell, in this Cultural Revolution, even straight men are being freed to enjoy a sex toys.) It’s also moving ever-so-slowly beyond the proprietary ownership of an American Pie style, pseudo-lesbian, beautiful young woman…to a place where even the old lady in Smokin’ Aces can have a dildo hanging out by the bathtub. Granted, we’ve a long way to go yet, in all the -isms, when this quick laugh occurs in context of literary absurdity. And female masturbation, much like lesbianism, is often co-opted personally and commercially for male pleasure. (But this is also yet one more power tool in the female arsenal, should she choose to own and use it.)

One can hardly imagine Gidget taking time away from her breast-building exercises to jerk off. We’re making headway. (yes, headway. Did you see what I did there?)

And it’s not just niche movies like Shortbus or Secretary that are looking at sex, and especially at women’s experiences of their own sexuality, differently. We also have suspense films like In the Cut, where girl-next-door Meg Ryan (of all the actors!) sheds her cute innocence to play a real person, one who lies on her belly and masturbates while thinking dirty thoughts. Mrowr.

Now, in addition to increasing the acceptability of cultural references to women's sexual pleasure, we really need to work on getting governmental and health care systems to value female sexual pleasure as highly as they do male sexual pleasure (see: the old debates on insurance and viagra). For that matter, we need to get comparable general care for women's bodies. My half-assed insurance won't even cover something as basic as an annual gynecological exam. (Yes, if it was ever in doubt, this genderqueer was born with a vagina.) Condoms aside, pharmaceutical companies don't bother to develop testes-based contraception when they can so easily continue placing much of this burden on the ones with the uteri. What about the massive expense that menstruation causes for roughly half the population? My Spanish friend wisely suggests the government pay for this is a general public health/sanitation service. (And again, what about the transgender patients?!)

But, we're out of space. On one last film tangent, I’m in my midtwenties, and I think it only just hit me that Johnny from Dirty Dancing ought to be a ‘mo, and Penny his hag. Maybe I just identified really strongly with idealistic, uncoordinated, determined, socially inept, loyal, sheltered, utterly without artifice Baby--therefore never questioned his interest in "big girls don't cry" Baby. More intriguingly, how did I never really question why the scenes where Penny and Baby dance together (with or without Johnny) were so erotic for me? I mean, at the end of the day, whatever, maybe Johnny’s cousin is the gay one.


*But while we’re on this tangent, check out 20 centímetros for an interesting foreign take on the transgender musical genre, nudity and sex both included.

(...to the full post)

AskFannie: Married Man-Meat!

Dear Fannie

I’m a 25 year old gay male. I live in a small city in the South, where it’s kind of hard to meet guys. I have to admit to using the internet to meet new guys, because the bar scene isn’t really me. I recently met someone online. He emailed me and he’s really sweet, funny… and well… really hot. But the problem is that he’s married. He was very upfront about the fact that he is bisexual and is married. No kids are involved, yet. Now, I know that I should just walk away because I can’t expect an LTR… but I’m tempted to hook up with him. What should I do?

The Other Man

Hey TOM (I hope that your name isn’t actually Tom, and the acronym is just a coincidence),

So, you’re thinking about getting down and dirty with a nuptial-knotted mister (so sue me… I like alliterations). Now, your average advice columnist would tell you that you’re a dirty shmuck for trying to get involved with a married man. How dare you threaten the stability of this clearly healthy heterosexual relationship! Damn queers!

Well, lucky for you, I’m not your average advice columnist… and frankly, giving you a slap on the wrist for thinking about bedding your beau with a bride would be far too easy.

Here’s how I see it. Once a cheater, always a cheater. People who cheat, I believe have a life-long propensity for cheating. Yes, the specific relationship they were in may have been on the rocks. Yes, maybe it was just that one time, but I will bet if someone did one of those nifty, authoritative “studies,” they’d find that people who have cheated on a partner in the past will almost indefinitely cheat again. But it’s important to identify who is doing the cheating.

You, TOM, aren’t the one betraying a spouse. That’s his commitment to keep, not yours. I’m tired of mistresses (and extra misters) throughout history getting all the flack for sleeping with married people. That kind of discourse tends to erase the fault of the married person, who is the one who made the commitment to his/her/one’s spouse.

Now, maybe it’s because I don’t have this overpowering reverence for the “sacred institution” of marriage, but I actually don’t have a problem with you hooking up with the married man. The fact that he sought you out, and the fact that you don’t know his wife, etc. indicates that married guy already has the intent on having extra-marital sex. Whether he sleeps with you or not, he already wants sex with someone that is not his wife. If it’s not you, it’ll be someone else.

So go ahead, jump on that wedded wang. Just know that what’s happening is just sex. Don’t go expecting him to leave his wife for you or anything. And even if he did, I wouldn’t get with him LTR-style, because chances are that he’ll still be looking for a different kind of Nancy.

Also, just to clarify to all my readers who may be shocked at my response: If the married guy wrote in to me asking if he should cheat on his wife with TOM, I’d rip him a new one, a la Fannie Fantabulous Fierceness. I don’t condone cheaters. It’s cheap and dishonest. If you’re going to have sex outside of a relationship, it should ALWAYS be cleared with all parties involved. Honest non-monogamy is the only kind of non-monogamy I condone. I just don’t think that TOM is doing anything wrong, and I’m tired of people coming down on the “other man/woman” for violating something they didn’t commit to.

++
fiercely,
fannie

Send your questions to askfannie@belowthebelt.org

(...to the full post)

A New Love

“You know, I’ve been thinking about opening up my dating pool to people who are HIV-positive.”

In the middle of my living room, at the tail end of a long, winding discussion of nothing and everything all at once, I said it—something I had always thought about but never really had the opportunity to say. My friends looked at each other to confirm their mutual astonishment. It was a silent shock, padded respectfully with a generous attempt at empathy that remained just that: an attempt. It was obvious that my comment had hit multiple walls of disagreement.

“Wouldn’t you get it too?”

“I’d be too scared of getting it.”

“What if you wanted to have children?”

“I don’t know—it would have to depend on the person.”

“If you loved someone that deeply, wouldn’t you want to share that physical bond with them?”

“I wouldn’t want to go into a relationship knowing that I was going to lose my lover, partner, husband, boyfriend, girlfriend—whoever.”

One of my friends likened my hypothetical to dating someone with genital herpes, and I replied that I would much sooner dump someone with genital herpes than HIV; though I’m not an expert epidemiologist, I haven’t heard many alternative causes to herpes other than sex. At least with HIV, you can’t make the same assumptions: that someone’s lack of protection or promiscuity necessarily infected them with a cursed disease.

At the root of my reasoning is this: It seems to me that most arguments against dating people with HIV involve its sexual inconveniences. Yet if I am truly committed to following the beating of my heart in my search for The One, I have to distance myself not only from the cerebral rulers of my life, but also from any insistent impulses below my belt. I need to believe in and desire the metaphysical manifestation of attraction, the pleasure of connection rather than erection. Indeed, given this mindset, it makes sense to even refigure my statement: Why say I’m opening up my dating pool to HIV-positive men when I haven’t really closed it to them?

I’ve come to realize that, for better or worse, I separate love from sex, making it more possible to be with people with whom I can’t have sex. My roommate—a horn-dog and wannabe sexpert—would never get into a relationship with someone for whom he had to abstain. For him, intercourse is the physical expression of deep, bonded intimacy; for me, it’s a bonus. Oh? You want to sleep together? Okay, let’s make out too. For me, sex adds to—but is not a prerequisite component of—a deeply loving relationship.

He suggests that I have a negative view of sex. Maybe. I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve had good, full-blown intercourse. Perhaps that lack of positive experiences has shifted my attention from satisfying my penis to actually trying to feel.

But what if the connection that my friends tell me exists between love and sex is a result of their being heterosexual? If, one day, I want to reproduce by combining my sperm with a woman’s egg and begin a family with someone, then yes: I would want that same woman to parent my child, and I would hope that woman is someone I love incredibly because I would devote as much of my life with her as I would with my child. Love and sex, in that case, bond by convenience.

I don’t want to suggest that the beating of one’s heart should be the sole arbiter of mate selection; I’m sure it’s possible—though some may say perverted—to feel love for someone much younger or for multiple people or for other species. I can’t speak for those experiences, and I can’t imagine how different the beating may be—or how not different it may be. My point, then, is that when we evaluate love and sex as a singular entity, choices we have in partners and relationships become harder to decide, and the focus we can dedicate to simply finding love leaves itself to unintentional pollution. Sex—in my naive, hell-bent on being hopelessly romantic point of view—confuses love.

Back in the living room, I tried fruitlessly to defend my position, my rationale unorganized in the face of opposition stated so strongly and appealingly: Sex is too important a part of what I know about relationships; the revelation of an HIV positive status is definitely a dealbreaker. I wanted so badly to rattle off a list of counterexamples. I wanted to prove my friends wrong. I wanted to rally behind capital-L Love, an ideal in which I believe and for which I strive. I couldn’t, in the face of the material evidence I had at hand, make my point. Their ideas about love had been bogged down in the reality of the physical. Sex, it seemed, had conquered all.

(...to the full post)

AskFannie: Fists of Fury!

Hey Fannie,

I'm new to the site and thought I throw a question your way. I'm a 24 year old bi-curious male and I've been dating this girl for a while. She's awesome but the other day I had this dream where I was getting fisted by some dude and it was pretty hot. I've experimented with some objects when I beat off but I feel like I might be stuck in a situation that won't let me get into anything extreme. What should I do?

Fervently Inquiring into Sexual Thrill

My sincere welcome, FIST, to our wonderful corner of the world wide web. And without further ado…

So, FIST, you're intrigued by the mysterious and marvelous world of fisting, but you're afraid that the miss isn't too keen on having her hand up your love chute. I don't know how long you have been together, the nature of your sex lives, or if your fisting fantasies are exclusively with men; but I assume you have toyed with the thought of your girlfriend fisting you. If she is as "awesome" as you say, give her a little credit. If she really is into you, a little fisting fantasy is hardly worth running to the hills over.

I understand that it can be difficult to bring up ass play as a straight male in a heterosexual relationship. Anal stimulation has long been equated with emasculation and homosexuality; man's ultimate doom! But the best way to bring up a fantasy with a significant other is to not treat it like it's a big deal. The more anxiety and hesitation you demonstrate while telling your girlfriend, the more reason you give her to think that your fantasy is one spot shy of Dante’s Inferno.

Try to gradually introduce ass play in your sexual relationship. Asking her to massage your anus while you hook up, can help clue her in on and warm up to your fantasy. In any sexual relationship, it's important to maintain clear communication lines. Asking your lover to give you pleasure is not overstepping. I firmly believe that in sexual relationships we should all strive to be good, giving, and game with our lovers: “'good in bed,' 'giving equal time and equal pleasure,' and 'game for anything—within reason.’” (unabashedly stolen from Dan).

Now, if your fantasy fist-fucking desperately requires a man, then we’ve got a bit of a stickier situation (please ignore the double entendre). While I am in full support of careful and thoughtful non-monogamy, I hesitate advising you to find a part-time friendly fantasy fisting fellow. If you can manage it and your girlfriend is cool with the idea of another man’s hand in your rectum, then more power to you. But, your fantasy is just that… a fantasy; a hot, steamy, sexy fantasy for sure, but a fantasy none the less.

If you can’t get your specific fantasy of getting fist fucked by your dream guy… tough. I'm highly doubtful that I'm going to get my twin fantasy sated any time soon. It’s hardly worth breaking up with a girlfriend over, especially if you can convince her to incorporate fucking your ass sore. If you still find your fantasy over-powering all your emotions and desires for your girlfriend and all her awesomeness, then I might take another look at that "curious" suffix.

Then again, there’s always this. Thank God, for American consumerism.

ps. Don't go away, FIST, I'm not done with you yet. Stay tuned for next week's Fannie's Guide to Fist Fun!

++
fannie

send your questions to askfannie@gmail.com

(...to the full post)

health care and time travel

It seems Below the Belt is on a literate kick of late. But then, I’m a librarian; my nose is perpetually stuffed in at least one book or movie.

So, let me now link a relatively recent article on how patient care continues to suffer in the area of reproductive health with a 1976 sci-fi novel that manages both to describe the appalling nature of health care—particularly toward women—in our past and to envision a compelling utopia in which gender becomes just one more attribute.

Okay, then. So. The article discusses how not only pharmacists, but also physicians, are claiming their moral/religious beliefs require them to refuse involvement in various aspects of birth control, the morning-after pill, fertility assistance, and abortion. Although a few states have laws to protect patient rights in this arena, laws and medical policies typically privilege the medical professionals. This priority holds particularly true regarding the ever-controversial issue of abortion; Congress allows federally-funded health providers to refuse to provide abortion services, and of the 46 states with their own physician opt-outs, 27 recently broadened the refusal policies. But lest our anti-abortion readers think the legislation stops there, 16 states have refusal clauses for performing sterilization and 8 for prescribing contraception.

"This is about the rights of the individual, about our constitutional right to freedom of religion," says Frank Manion, an attorney with the American Center for Law and Justice, a legal group in Washington, D.C. Founded by minister Pat Robertson, the organization has represented health care providers and lobbied for laws that protect them. "We're not trying to deny anybody access to treatment," Manion adds. "We're saying, 'Don't make your choice my choice.'"

This is particularly problematic when insurance and income prevent some patients from seeking more comprehensive services elsewhere. Thankfully, some legislation seeks to protect patient rights. About one-fifth of states now require or strongly encourage emergency rooms to counsel about and/or offer emergency contraception to rape survivors. Although the effort failed, Virginia’s HB2842 would have required pharmacists to, oh you know, fill prescriptions. Obviously we have a long way to go, but people are wrestling with these issues.

And that bring me back to how far we’ve come since Marge Piercy wrote Woman on the Edge of Time. We aren’t quite as bad about putting (poor, minority) women into mental health facilities just for challenging the patriarchy in some way. Yay, us. Survivors of domestic abuse are now much better-supported, on the whole, in both medical and legal fields. The ethics of medical experimentation have vastly improved, although there remain concerns about the overparticipation of underprivileged groups.

But we still treat gender and race as significant, innate categories. We still glorify a tough masculinity. We still mistrust people’s ability to understand their own bodies and be involved in their medical and psychological assessment and treatment. We still tend to blame the individual for society problems. (Go back another century and we have Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s "The Yellow Wallpaper.")

So, not to sound like I don’t appreciate the progress we’ve made, but…that’s all pretty depressing to me.

I was, however, rather delighted by the utopia Piercy offers. Fluid, self-chosen, yet communal identity. Self-chosen, changeable names. Person/per for pronouns. Sexuality however consenting parties like it. The only real taboo is violence. Work enough to support the community but not so much to prevent growth and creativity. Respect the power of rituals. Value both inward and outward knowledge. Keep technology around to do what makes people miserable. Use resources responsibly. Don’t worry much about luxuries until everybody’s needs are met. Realize that beauty is productive. Teach by doing. Discourage competitive materialism. Encourage diversification of strengths. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

You know you’re intrigued.

I just wish the book gave more suggestions for how society moves toward even an imperfect utopia. (Yes, yes, seeming paradox, I know. But utopia’s not a final state; it’s a way of moving.) With all the dissatisfied radicals I know are out there, are we all stuck in some Field of Dreams waiting period? Dude, somebody’s got to start building. The conservative Christians already realize this. Enough with criticizing, let’s get to creating.

(...to the full post)

S is for Sex Change

If you can get your hands on it, read Julia A. Greenberg’s article “Defining Male and Female: Intersexuality and the Collision Between Law and Biology,” published in the 1999 Arizona Law Review. (Try a public or academic library with access to Lexis-Nexis.) This applies some complex perspectives on gender—held by pomos, feminists, anthropologists, biologists, etc.—to our legal system. Foucault and the others certainly were clever at times. In Greenberg’s law review article and in court cases across the world, we see discourse and control intertwined; it becomes not just socially but legally mandated to define identities and even to shape bodies to support these ways of talking and perceiving the world. A rigidly policed gender binary is necessary in order to sustain heterosexism (and, arguably, sexism).

I did a lot of reading for this blog and was going to reference many an article and news case. I find, instead, that I feel like ranting.

Most states in the USA have some method of changing one’s legal sex (whether by revising or replacing birth certificates). But throughout the country, and definitely across the globe, these methods vary. Is the petitioner’s identity claim enough? Does it take a letter from a psychologist? A physician? Both? Must a supporting letter diagnose gender identity dysphoria? Intersexuality? Is prior treatment required—hormonal, therapeutic, surgical? How much treatment?

On, and on, and on, it goes. And I can’t help but think: we can change our hair, nail, eye color at will; darken pale skin with chemicals or sun damage; eat and laze ourselves into life-threatening obesity; staple our stomachs into submission and liposuction the fat out of ourselves; augment or reduce breasts for aesthetics or health or self-confidence; pierce nearly anything (and gauge those piercings); enlarge a penis with chemicals, gadgets or surgery…but add something like a penis or breasts where they’re not expected, and suddenly the matter moves from a decision between either you and you, or you and your doctor…to one between you and the government.

It especially matters to the government if you want possession of a penis to entitle you to being treated like everybody else with a penis. Because you already recognize that what’s in your pants is not just of private significance, but also strangely important to government/society and pivotal in their regulation of your relationships. If you want, say, to bring your Mexican wife into the country, you’d better be able to prove you have a legitimate marriage, which usually means you’d better prove your maleness, which usually means prove you have a penis. And, in case you’re wondering at my failure to mention snatch: at birth, we’re sorted into 1) those who have a penis, and 2) those who do not have a penis (or, in some cases, have too small a penis to count). That’s right, feminists. Women are still defined by their lack, from the get-go. And courts are inclined to look at it as “but you don’t have a penis!” or “what’d you do with your penis?!” or, more quietly, “well, you do have a penis….”

But let’s get back to the general concepts of body modification. A state-recognized woman can change her breasts at will. A state-recognized man can (try to) change his penis. In cases of intersexuality, surgery is often expected in order to move someone more in line with an idealized male or female body form. This is because we realize there are plenty of recognized “dudes” who are overweight and have breasts, plenty of women with mustaches and flat chests and slim hips, and so on. And we want you to be able to (spend your money to) correct these unfortunate physical inadequacies and further polarize yourself. But don’t ask to move across the sex lines, and definitely don’t ask to straddle both sides of the line, or to live on a different plane entirely. Our culture will continuously ignore intersexuality and the fact that the bajillion factors in so-called straightforward biological sex do not always align in this binary fabrication we call male/female. (did you see what I did there? Straightforward. Ha.) There are testes with tatas, XY with a side dose of extra X, and many other variations in the human form (including the much-feared Clitorises of Unusual Size). But hey, why question the binary sex system and its associated stereotypes, when we can just call out these individuals with “abnormal” genotypes and phenotypes, these “freaks of nature”?

Well, excuse me, darlings, but maybe an unadjusted body is as friggin’ “natural” as it gets, and we should get over this socially constructed discursive and medical regulation of our bodies and recognize evidence of life outside the binary.


Some food for more academic thought:
DOJ - Recognizing Sex Change to Allow Immigration by Marriage
What’s up in Egypt
Miss Spain rules to allow transsexuals and mothers
HRW: Resource Library for International Jurisprudence on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
Spanish Government to approve transsexual rights law
Legal aspects of transsexualism (Wikipedia)
An identity under scrutiny in Palestine (Human Rights Watch, 21-6-2007)
Gender Recognition Act 2004 (Wikipedia)

(...to the full post)

swedish schoolkids

So I read a random blog post this week. I’m going to try to pick out a few of the more interesting questions it raises.

A magazine published by the main Teachers Union in Sweden recently suggested several ways preschool teachers can promote gender equality and sexual equality. No surprise, homophobes are intensely worried that their young children would be allowed to experiment and make up their own minds “force-fed lectures on gay sex by some sex freak from the Teachers’ Union.” Especially intriguing is the conservative concern that children need to be allowed to “play and discover entirely on their own,” without being indoctrinated and “forced to have an opinion on gay sex”—and that such proposals as the Teachers’ Union made are downright abusive of these defenseless children.

I especially love the limited (and privileged) understanding of society expressed in these statements. The notion that any children are ever allowed to “play and discover entirely on their own” is meaningless given the pervasiveness of media imagery and home life on which child’s play is modeled. What social progressives are, in fact, suggesting when they would seek deliberately to introduce children to new/alternative models for play (and thus for real life, if the play is enjoyed) is not to change something intrinsic in the children, but to expand the children’s repertoire of play and subsequent understanding of the surrounding world. It takes a lot to get over the indoctrination already in place through parenting, media influences, ignorance and fear.

Not speaking Swedish, sadly, I can’t go to the magazine and figure out the exact suggestions made by the Teachers’ Union (if such a magazine truly exists—who trusts the internet?). The blogger, however, describes existing actions in Stockholm kindergartens (again unsourced):

“In a kindergarten in Stockholm, the parents were encouraged by the preschool teachers - apparently ideological pioneers - to equip their sons with dresses and female first names. There are now weeks in some places when boys HAVE TO wear a dress.”

Now, I’ll admit it, this is a radical move. It’s also one that warms my heart, of course, as someone who strongly opposes a rigid gender system. At first, it sounds really disturbing to force a child (of any gender, even) to wear a dress. There’s a difference, too, between allowing and requiring. But think about it. Let’s ensure that this is not actually done as a requirement for boys, but for all schoolchildren, and you have a rather painless and interesting scenario: say part of a school uniform or dress code is that every Wednesday all children must wear trousers, and every Thursday all children must wear a skirt. The rest of the week they pick for themselves. Just imagine that for a while…..


The blogger reports alarm at similar trends throughout the country:

“The Swedish Consumers Association reacted angrily to a star-shaped, pink ice-cream because it represented gender-profiling. “Girlie, GB’s new ice pop, is pink and has make-up inside the stick. It says a lot about what GB thinks about girls and how they should be,” the association said in a statement. According to them, Sweden does not need more products that reinforce existing prejudices about sex roles, so they asked the producer to make the product less gender specific.”

Okay, okay, things are a little murky when we’re talking about requesting businesses change their marketing to avoid gender stereotypes. That’s getting toward censorship. But Anders Nelson (a researcher quoted by the blogger) does have a point that children, raised within gender structures invisible to them, will be susceptible to gender marketing. Parents can help encourage exploration of gender roles, but as long as that societal image is there, it will be very difficult for children to really gain independence of the gender structures. That’s where schools can be helpful, as they are grounds for academic and social learning. By increasing gender flexibility at school—even though it may mean introducing initially-uncomfortable conversations and play—the school ultimately seeks to free children from the power structures and biases of the society.

Some people, like our blogger, will always say “this has thus absolutely nothing to do with ‘tolerance or diversity.’ It’s done in order to break you down and to mold you into a new human being.”—after all, we are talking about giving people options to live differently from the status quo. But I say the two have everything to do with each other. The “old” human being is, on the whole, bigoted, privileged and ignorant. Why not remove the ignorance and privilege, and see if the prejudice remains?

(...to the full post)

theinquisitor: genderqueer in Portland

Below is an interview with a genderqueer individual living in Portland, Oregon. The answers correspond to the questions, but are not in order:

1. How does gender play a role in your life?
2. How has your sexuality been shaped, if at all, by your gender identification (assuming you have one)?
3. How do you feel about gender identification in general: do you see it as a necessary tool for providing order in the world or is it a hindrance to your own, and the rest of the world's, liberty?
4. Is your gender performance something that you think about often? What has the evolution of your consciousness on the matter looked like? (i.e.: pre college, during college, post college gender awareness)

Throughout my life i've been constantly been "bumping heads," so to speak, with gender. I refused to wear dresses before I could form full sentences and was considered a tomboy throughout grade school, at one point insisting that my parents refer to me as "Bradley James." I don't remember whether or not I considered myself a boy, at that age I probably didn't really think that I needed to choose sides.

Puberty was a wake-up call. I was most bothered by the fact that it wasn't acceptable for me to wear swim trunks anymore. I presented myself as fairly feminine in high school and didn't really question my gender as a girl. I think the message that people are either boys or girls based on physical attributes had finally sunk in-- there certainly was no one else in my life challenging that idea. However, as I began to identify more strongly as a girl, I became more aware of how differently boys and girls are treated. I hated being treated as what I felt like was less and was bothered even more by the fact that everyone else my age was oblivious to the differential treatment.

It was a relief to be in a same-sex environment at Smith College, gender became a non-issue for me, both internally and externally. Without having 2 distinct groups for me to compare myself to, I sort of floated back into a gray fuzzy gender somewhere between man and woman. This seems like a more natural fit for me and I do believe in the whole idea of gender as a spectrum although I'd probably agree that most people fall closer to one end or the other rather in the middle like myself.

I feel like there's a lot of pressure within the genderqueer community to choose a gender if you are somewhere in the middle... to make it easier for yourself and everyone else around you. There are a lot of reasons why I'm pretty content to stay in the middle at this point in my life. The first is that I honestly don't know which gender I would prefer if I were to pick one so I'm not willing to make any drastic changes like surgery, hormones or pronoun switching to be perceived as more male. Why choose to transition when I don't feel any more like a man than a woman? However, I would like to have chest surgery in order to be more ambiguous, not necessarily to identify as a man, and also for the freedom of not having to cover/strap down a part of my body that men don't have to deal with. I want to be able to wear swimtrunks.

Another reason for me to stay in the middle is that I feel like just by being hard to place I have more impact on how people think about gender in general. Even though most people clearly categorize me as a woman, most recognize that they interact with me as they might with a guy and that I'm not the same as other women. I try to make it clear that this difference isn't simply due to being gay but sometimes that doesn't always work... but sometimes it does.

Gender performance is a tricky thing because after you finally have people perceiving you as differently gendered, you have maintain that image. Because people are accustomed to viewing the world with two genders only, most are constantly trying to "categorize," even if they aren't aware of it. It’s so easy to slip up and do something "feminine" and then worry that it will reaffirm the belief that you actually were a girl all along. I know a few FTM guys who feel like they have to hide all feelings of sensitivity in order to be perceived as masculine.

I would argue that my sexuality and gender identity have developed separately. I was a pretty sexual kid and didn't discriminate between boys and girls when I was practicing kissing. When I started to seriously wonder if I was attracted to women was during highschool, the time in my life when I actually stopped questioning my own gender and fully identified as a woman.

How I feel about gender identification in general? Yes, I think it has become an important tool for providing order in the world but not a necessary one. Gender identification outside of my own is such a huge issue that I don't even know where to answer that because I haven't been able to get a firm grasp on it. I think gender is the single most effective form of social organization and that we have become so very dependent on it that it will never disappear. It's actually sort of sickening to think about how early people are stereotyped in life based on their genitalia, which most people associate with gender. My co-worker just found out that she was carrying a boy today. People immediately started talking about clothes with footballs and how it will be so much easier for her than a girl might be because she can send the kid off to the park with his dad. This kid will be ushered into a world that has expectations for him that he may or may not have any interest in fulfilling. I can only hope that gender will become more fluid as more people are open about being differently gendered, more people in general will start to think about gender as more than a "2 box option." It's pretty rare for people to question their own gender; it's just too unsettling.

(...to the full post)

f/m in the s/m

This weekend I signed a waiver promising that I would not engage in electrical play above the waist. Then I walked downstairs into a women-only space at a club normally packed with gay males. I went in drag. (Of course, in a binary-gendered society I’m always in drag) I had no idea what to expect; I was to attend an S&M party in the middle of International Mr. Leather.

What I observed and experienced in the basement spoke to gender within the broad and trans-friendly spectrum of "women." Of the master/slave pairs (yes, collars included), those with a femme/butch distinction invariably positioned the femme in the dominant master role. Is such a dom displaying a necessary ultra-femininity to counterbalance the culturally taboo claiming of power and sexual control by a woman? (But then, would mimicry of male/female dominance through a butch/femme dom/sub pair be considered more justified or at least more “normal”? Or would this instead reinforce the shocking dangers of a woman taking on “a man’s role”? Does putting the femme on top soften the cultural blow?) Perhaps the femme/butch dom/sub pair is a deliberate reversal of power relations normalized in the wider culture. Or, does the dominant femme embrace and reclaim the age-old fear that a woman’s power is in her sexuality? (And that her sexuality is tied irrevocably to her womanhood…)

And how many of those possible explanations factor into how hot I found those pairs? How did my own gender performance affect my relation to the women I voyeuristically observed giving and receiving commands, spanks, floggings, kisses, slaps, and more?

I find it very telling that this party was limited to women. There’s a strong sense that straight men cannot be trusted to enter a space of vulnerability and power like an S&M party. Of course, one has to question whether someone who comes to a place of group sex and public S&M isn’t automatically queered (gender attraction aside). The mere thought of someone accustomed to exercising male privilege would prevent (through intimidation or disgust) many queer women from attending. It doesn’t seem to matter that such a man might be well-behaved and play by the rules; his very presence changes the atmosphere. The gay men whose territory we had, after all, invaded, seemed a bit confused at being barred from the basement but they continued to dance merrily above. While I’m less concerned about their ability to deter women from attending, I hardly think they suffered from exclusion. This was the one event of International Mr. Leather catering exclusively to women. That specialization in itself is sexy and creates a sacred space, paradoxically freeing women from their gender by its very invocation: hence the wide range of costume and personality along (what I’ve reluctantly labeled) a butch/femme spectrum. It’s less about “my womanhood grants me entry” and more “as I am attracted to women, how wonderful that no men will be in the way.”

A friend of mine believes strongly in the power of S&M to release and heal embodied trauma, benefits accessible to all and entirely independent from the sexual thrill some people experience. Violations of the body, in particular, are carried with us almost like muscle memory. But as long as we live in a body- and sex-negative society, it’s likely that people suffering these particular wounds will continue relying upon either the talking cure or therapy in a bottle, nevermind the relative efficacy of these approaches. There is little room for exploring alternate therapies.

It’s a wonder someone was able to advertise and throw a party like this, then, and no surprise at all that every participant signed a consent form and legal waiver.

But S&M is increasingly present in mainstream culture, filtering its way in through films like Secretary and popular comedy. [Make sure you check out the SNL opener after Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House] And as more talk happens, we’ll find a growing, subversive channel for power, sexuality and gender expression.

(...to the full post)

AskFannie: Analingus!

Welcome to the first installment of AskFannie! As toughstuff has already said, I'm your go to girl/boy/sissy/queer for all things sex, love, and everything in between. Just send your questions to askfannie@gmail.com and you may be featured in the column. Make sure you leave a pseudonym if you want to remain anonymous, and any identifications you'd like to pass along to increase accuracy. Without further ado, I give you, AskFannie pt. 1!


Dear Fannie,

I'm a 20-something gay white male. Something weird has been going down in my life: people are confiding in me left and right that they LOVE rimming. And they're all straight guys!

I've never tried it, but I was wondering, is it sanitary? Are there rules or guidelines for it? If I'm topping for anal, will I be expected to perform it? And my big question, is rimming the new oral??

Thanks,
Stumped in Sydney



So, Stumped, you are interested in exploring the wonderful world of rimming? Well you're in for a treat. Rimming, a.k.a. analingus, is increasing in popularity and quickly entering into the common boudoire repetoire. For those of you who don't know, rimming is when one licks on, in, or around the anus of one's partner. The first thing that should be said about rimming is that it holds a low-risk for HIV infection, but normal risk for other STIs like viral hepatitis. Ideally all rimmers should make use of a dental dam, but obviously not everyone will want to use a dental dam. I'm an advocate for safe-sex, but I will be the first to admit that every time that I have received a rimjob, I have not used a dental dam. It's a calculated risk you have to decide if you are willing to take.

When people ask me about rimming, their number one concern is fecal matter. While some people who like to give rimjobs enjoy some of the scat elements of residual fecal matter on the anus, it's not a blanket rule. It's considered polite to wash the region before any tongue-to-ass play, but ask your partner what is preferred. Contrary to popular belief, the anus and rectum have only trace amounts of fecal matter in them, so don't be afraid of accidentally getting a mouthful of choco-fun. If fecal matter is a significant issue for the giving partner, consider using a douche or enema to wash and empty the rectum of fecal matter. Rimming is a great activity for foreplay to insertive anal sex, as it helps lubricate the opening to the rectum and relax the muscles in the region.

My number one tip for any aspiring rimmers is: variation. While a constant lapping at the love chute is all fun and games, it can get a bit boring for the recipient. Try licking the anus, then around the anus, the perineum, etc. The best rimjob I ever received was when my partner licked quickly from my anus to my perineum and back again. The trail of saliva acts as a natural cooling agent when left exposed to the air, which can increase sensitivity to the region.

A word to the wise: try to avoid performing a rimjob and then directly afterward performing fellatio or cunnilingus as the digestive bacteria that may be found in and around the anus can cause urinary tract infections. Washing the area beforehand reduces those risks. So break out the soap!

++
fannie

(...to the full post)