The latest to take porn to task for ruining modern fucking is Salon's Mary Elizabeth Williams. She writes,

Convenience, ubiquity, and the goal-oriented, money-shot, male-centric perspective of most porn (hint: women don't need to see that much fellatio) have changed us. Much has been written on how porn's transformation into the modern sexual lingua franca affects women – the pressure to be bush-shaved and adept at pole dancing didn't come from Oprah or Martha Stewart. But porn has changed men too – what we expect of them, what they demand of themselves. And the problem is that thinking you can learn to make to love to a woman from watching porn is like thinking you can learn to drive from watching "The Fast and the Furious."

Her point is that dudes who watch too much Ron Jeremy think that women want to be jackhammered — or, more upsettingly, that they enjoy a man "withdrawing his member at key moments to thump it on" them. Williams's piece is pretty funny; about the latter technique, she writes, "You know what description you never want a woman you've slept with to apply to your sexual technique? 'Baffling.'" But do men really need to "learn to make to love to a woman?"

Williams writes that "unlike other recreational pleasures — bowling, baking pies — sex, unless you're a swinger, isn't something people get much firsthand observational experience with," and speculates that some turn to porn for its "instructional uses." She also says, "sex isn't just a matter of doing what comes naturally." To which I thought, it's not? Yes, it's true that your first encounter with your high school boyfriend (or girlfriend) is not going to be the most mind-blowing intercourse of your life. And Williams is right about the necessity of communication: she writes, "I have nothing but admiration for anyone who's ever had the guts to simply come out and ask a lover what works and what doesn't." Me too. But the idea that sex is a skill, like bowling, for which we need instructions, actually seems like part of porn culture to me.

To be clear, I don't think Williams is suggesting that guys bone up (sorry) on a million different techniques before bedding women. She seems to be arguing for talking to your partner, not believing everything you see on the Internet, and not taking yourself too seriously — all of which sounds like good advice. What I'm dissatisfied with isn't so much Williams's argument per se as the whole idea that people have to be "good in bed." It's a concept promulgated not just in porn but in magazines, which imply that you don't really have a good sex life unless you know 32 ways to massage the taint. And in terms of commodifying something that's supposed to be fun and (usually) free, convincing us that we need professional advice on sex is almost as bad as telling us we're not allowed to have pubic hair.

Both sex advice and new sexual techniques can be fun and hot. What's less hot is the idea that sex is just one more area where we have to achieve — and where we're supposed to pay other people money to help us do so. If, as Barbara Ehrenreich alleges, late-stage American capitalism has produced the life coach, it's also spawned a crop of sex coaches — magazine editors and self-help book writers devoted to helping us win the game of satisfying a lover. But unlike capitalism, sex should be a game where everybody wins.

Though Williams, with her emphasis on fun and communication, is part of the solution, her claim that guys can't just do what comes naturally is part of the problem. So, of course, is porn, privileging huge dicks and ridiculous moves over actual enjoyment. But maybe the pornification of sex wouldn't be such a problem if we weren't worried about "doing it right." Maybe we could keep porn in its proper place — entertainment, not instruction or comparison — if we weren't constantly told we needed to compare or instruct ourselves. Maybe what we need is not so much to critique porn, but to get past it — to stop thinking so much and just fuck.

How Not To Make Love Like A Porn Star [Salon]

Unsurprisingly, "Sense and Sexuality" was created by the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, which claims on their website to offer the "leading resource for advice, training, and guidance of young conservative women" (the anti-feminist organization also famously encouraged their members to boycott and protest Ensler's play The Vagina Monologues). Their newest effort is the aforementioned craptastic website, based almost entirely on the work of Dr. Mariam Grossman. Grossman is a psychiatrist and author of the book Unprotected. She also has her own website, where she calls herself "100% M.D. 0% PC" and explains her mission: "I am here to tell you that radical politics pervades healthcare, and common sense has vanished. Who's paying the highest price? Girls and women."

"Sense and Sexuality" takes up Grossman's task of protecting women from themselves and the horrible choices they are bound to make, given the chance, and runs with it. The result is a website that is geared toward college students and claims to provide the "scientific facts" about sex, but only offers little blurbs about how having sex will ruin your life. A section titled "The Facts" features several sentences about convenient studies, mixed with "advice" that read like an order from Big Brother: "The rectum is an exit, not an entrance. Anal penetration is hazardous. Don't do it." And in case you were wondering, oral sex is also out. The scare tactics don't stop there. Sex will also make you depressed ("As the number of casual sex partners in the past year increased, so did signs of depression in college women"), alcohol will make you sleep with gross dudes ("Did you hear? Science has confirmed the existence of 'beer goggles'-when a person seems more attractive to you after you've had a few drinks. Enjoy a glass of wine or a couple of beers at a party, and the guy hitting on you begins to look better than when you arrived...In the morning, you both look different") and getting a Ph.D. will fill you with the horrible emptiness of a barren woman ("It saddens me each time a patient describes this-typically a student who always put career first, and is finally getting a Ph.D. at 38 or 40. She's thrilled to reach that milestone, but aches for another: to feel a new life inside her, to give birth").

One of the best (worst) quotes follows the question "Why can't I stop thinking about the guy I hooked up with last night when he can't remembers my name?" Grossman's answer? Oxytocin (see, they said there would be science!). Oxytocin apparently turns girls into needy messes while having absolutely no effect on men: "When it comes to sex, oxytocin, like alcohol, turns red lights green. It plays a major role in what's called 'the biochemistry of attachment.' Because of it, you could develop feelings for a guy whose last intention is to bond with you. You might think of him all day, but he can't remember your name." For all their claims that this is a "scientific" website, willing to tell you the hard facts where no one else will, this is about as science-y as it gets.

The most frustrating thing about the website is that it offers absolutely no advice beyond just say no! According to "Sense and Sexuality," condoms are bad, birth control is worse, and men are never, ever to be trusted. Sex will lead to heartbreak, infertility, and genital sores. That's it. "Sense and Sexuality" offers no other options the college-aged women they claim they want to help. There isn't even a mention of how sex can be positive within the bounds of marriage. The message here isn't wait until you're ready but instead sex is dangerous, bad, and you should be ashamed of yourself, young lady! "Sense and Sexuality" allows absolutely no sex, not now, not ever, and offers even less sense.

Sex & Sensuality: New Anti-Sex Website Shames Young Women [Feministing]
Sense And Sexuality [Official Site]
Miriam Grossman [Official Site]
Unprotected [Amazon]

When we posted the original piece, many commenters called Lucy Baxter's quest to help Otto an "epic parenting fail." But after learning more about Otto, you can't help but root for him. He's much like any other 21-year-old: He can quote Shakespeare. He likes burgers and boobs. He fantasizes about women. He likes strippers. And he's really obsessed with sex.

Here's Otto's stripper daydream:

"They pin me on the wall," he says. "They kiss me right on the neck. I unbutton my shirt. It feels very nice. I had a girl. She was on my willy. She jumped on my willy. It's wicked. It feels nice. I have a huge boner. Straight up. It feels lovely. Yep. I want to do it again. She also put her boobs in my face. One of the strippers grabbed my glasses and put them on her nipple. 'Are you naughty?' 'Oh, yes, I'm very naughty.' 'Come on, big boy! Let's take it down to your trousers! Unfasten your belt and let me pull it down and suck on it!'"

Otto sort of puts food and sexy women in the same category: "Burgers with boobs. Stick in an olive-it's like a nipple. And they have legs like bacon. And their bottom is like a steak. And they also have eyes like round biscuits. Actually, their whole body's like a biscuit. I'm hungry for a stripper."

Upon arriving in Vegas at the Hooters Casino Hotel, Otto says: "Lots of hot babes in here!" But then turns to his aide, Bill, and says: "Strip clubs. That's what I want to do."

Otto has had girlfriends (they had Down Syndrome, too) before, but the relationships always ended. The women's "carers" stopped Otto from dating them, and Jeff Gordinier points out, "The parents and caretakers of women with Down syndrome often cut off a relationship because they're afraid of where it might lead."

That's where the trip to Vegas with Bill comes in. Writes Gordinier:

The British government provides a generous stipend to families whose children have learning disabilities. In Lucy Baxter's case, she has used that money to bestow upon her son a privilege usually associated with CEOs and box-office stars: an aide-de-camp. This is Bill. He specializes in social work with the disabled. Bill's responsibilities run from helping Otto tidy up his room in the morning to providing counsel on matters of love and personal conduct. Past assistants, Otto's mother says, "have wanted to please me. And the job is not about that. It's about meeting Otto's needs and supporting him, and that's exactly what Bill does. Bill has it absolutely right. He'll guide Otto. He'll sit down and talk to him about issues. But he'll very much leave it for Otto to decide what he wants to do."

What Otto wants to do is party with pretty ladies. Bill and Otto go to a club, and, reports Gordinier,

"Otto acts as though he has died and gone to Sigma Chi heaven. Within seconds he is doing the bump on the dance floor with a curly-haired blonde. He vogues. He spins. He drops to his knees and weaves ribbons of air guitar. The jukebox advances to the Kings of Leon's "Sex on Fire" and a bartender shouts above the din, "I love this song!"

"So do I!" Otto shouts back.

It doesn't take long for Otto to own the room. He becomes, within minutes, a magnetic catalyst of debauchery.

Otto plays the Roulette tables aggressively; makes suggestive, sexual comments to women (he says of one waitress, "Hottie, hottie! I'm gonna pay her to strip!" ) and guzzles booze. On some level you have to wonder if he knows what he can get away with. Bill says: "For most guys, the hottest girl is intimidating. so they don't get approached that often. But Otto is not intimidated. He goes right for the jackpot."

Gordinier talks to Karin Melberg Schwier, the coauthor of Sexuality: Your Sons and Daughters With Intellectual Disabilities and the mother of an adult son with Down syndrome, who says, "The old myth is still alive and well that people with Down syndrome are 'eternal children' — they never really grow up. I still bristle every time I see the media referring to a 'child in an adult body.'"

While the story, unfortunately, leaves us hanging — we're not sure whether Otto loses his virginity or not — it's impossible not to hope that this man is able to lead a "normal," healthy life… And that includes sexual activity.

The Greatest Virginity Story Ever Told [Details]
Earlier: Mommy Issues

[Image via Oxford Times]

In a brand new post on The Daily Beast entitled "The GOP Is Clueless About Sex", McCain argues that, Bristol Palin aside, the GOP insistence that women aren't sexual and knowledge isn't important if one can just convince everyone not to have sex is, well, stupid.

Here's what I've never understood about the party: its resistance to discussing better access to birth control. As a Republican, I am pro-life. But using birth control and having an abortion are not the same at all. Actually, the best way to prevent abortions is to educate people about birth control and make it widely and easily accessible. True: abstinence is the only way to fully prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Still, the problem with abstinence-only education is that it does not make teenagers and young adults more knowledgeable about all the issues they face if or when they have sex-physically and emotionally.

This is, in effect, the whole purpose of comprehensive sex education and the actual reproductive health policy advocated by President Obama.

Obama isn't just advocating for it anymore: he's putting it into action in his new budget. As reported earlier today:

The Obama budget eliminates the main federal funding streams for abstinence-only education (some of which have been around since welfare reform) and replaces them with $110 million in competitive grants to "fund teen pregnancy prevention programs," with at least $75 million reserved for "programs that replicate the elements of one or more teenage pregnancy prevention programs that have been proven through rigorous evaluation to delay sexual activity, increase contraceptive use (without increasing sexual activity), or reduce teenage pregnancy." It also authorizes $50 million in new mandatory teen pregnancy prevention grants to states.

Reducing unwanted pregnancy reduces abortions, increasing science-based sex education reduces abortion (and helps women and men better deal with their sexuality), it's all good.

And the budget is really specific about abstinence-only education, known in federal speak by the name Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE).

This Budget eliminates funding for Community-Based Abstinence Education, the mandatory Title V Abstinence Education program, the Compassion Capital Fund, and Rural Community Facilities.

Buh-bye, and hooray!

The GOP Is Clueless About Sex [The Daily Beast]
The End of Abstinence-Only [Time]
An End To Abstinence Only, In Black And White [Politico]

Pediatrician Dr. Perri Klass, in this week's "18 and Under" column, talks rather generally about the challenges of talking to boys about sex - which, in her book, means ensuring not just a respect for women but a general air of courtesy, a necessary defense against those who regard adolescent males as predators and girls as victims. Well, sure, among other things. As is often the case in these pieces, though, there seems to be a sense that these kids have just sprung up, Athena-style, fully formed and sexually active, at the whims of an overly sexualized pop culture. True to a degree, sure - healthy images of adolescent sexuality are certainly few and far between - but by the time a kid's a teen, hasn't he absorbed values of respect and decency at home? To the concerned Times-reading parent delivering this lecture, surely there's been at least a decade of raising, living, and influence far more potent than any 20-minute conversation?

I asked a male friend about "the talk." He described it as, "a weird combination of things I'd known for years - like safe sex stuff, and that it was okay to masturbate, which I'd gathered - and things I really did not need to hear. Like, 'if you ever get a girl pregnant, come to me, not your mother.' Pregnant? I was 12!" Another dude I asked said, "Yeah, my parents sat me down when I was maybe 15 to talk to me about how 'no means no' and basically to be a reasonable person and it was kind of offensive. I mean, I get it. But it was so obvious to me and the way I'd been raised. The guys who need to hear that? Probably not the ones having these conscientious talks with their parents in the first place."

To answer the author's question, do the sexes need to be addressed differently? Obviously, yes and no. Respect, self-respect, safety are fundamentals. The particulars and the pressures differ. Courtesy, which seems to be the author's bete noir, is important, and I guess in an ideal world underlies all this, but when push comes to shove is another issue entirely when we're talking about real issues of safety, trust and decency. The readers who write in earnestly all agree to a degree - "teach your children well" ad nauseam - and then there's this:

As a single, 30-something woman, I can tell you it isn't just the teenagers that need manners. I feel like such an old lady, but I'm simply shocked at the behaviour of men. Every week or so, a man comes up out of the blue to demand sex in explicit terms. Today a man came up on the subway and told me how good I'd look giving him a, well something that I don't think that can be repeated on the NY Times. On-line is the worst: last week a man wrote me the comparatively clean: "Strategically, what's the quickest way to intercourse with you?"...I have to wonder–does this work for some women? Why are so many men behaving like something out of a porn video? What on earth is going on?

Talking to Boys About Sex [New York Times]

"The Joy of Sex Education," the new series available from the British Film Institute, takes the viewer from the earliest sex-ed film (1917's silent Whatever A Man Soweth, about the dangers of VD for soldiers) to the "liberated" 1970s, in which the blame for Don't Be Like Brenda!'s unplanned pregnancy is laid firmly at the door of irresponsible girls. In 1932's The Mystery Of Marriage (below) we get a vague birds-and-bees explication that would have left any kid totally baffled about reproduction, but still obscurely embarrassed.






How we learned about the birds and the bees: The sex education films dating back to 1917 [Daily Mail]
Here's the first lesson on joyless side of sex [Independent]
The Mystery of Marriage (1932) - extract [YouTube]

Slaughter, who is sponsoring the act along with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado, aims to shift the focus from a "no sex, no pregnancy" mentality to a much more realistic teaching method that encourages young people to make safe, responsible choices. "We believe the amount of money that goes into [abstinence-only education] would be so much better used on things to prevent unwanted pregnancies," Slaughter says, "I think we'll have enough votes to deal with it." Currently, about 176 million dollars is spent on abstinence-only education, and studies have shown that the programs simply don't work.

The Prevention First Act would push for realistic, open education, with the mentality that teens need more that the words "don't" in order to properly prepare themselves, mentally and physically, for sexual activity. Contraception, medically accurate information, would be discussed, providing kids with realistic options. The act also seeks to improve public awareness of emergency contraception, ensure that rape victims are provided with proper information and emergency contraception options, and to force insurance companies to provide women with proper coverage regarding contraception.

According to Slaughter, a compromise, where in abstinence-only education is also offered to kids, would be unacceptable. "We can't have both, because abstinence-only doesn't work," Slaughter says.

Sarah Brown of The National Coalition to Prevent Teen And Unplanned Pregnancy agrees, and notes that in such tough economic times, the country can't afford to keep spending millions and millions of dollars on programs that have been proven to be ineffective. "In a highly constrained fiscal environment, it's critical to focus precious dollars on programs that have evidence of good effects," Brown says, "When you look at the best science, the abstinence-only programs come up short."

The Prevention First Act [NARAL]
Future Of Abstinence-Only Funding Is In Limbo [AP]
Teens Take Virginity Pledges, And Then Have Sex [Alternet]
Teen Pregnancy Rates Rise In 26 States

The study, conducted at the University of Sydney, was based on a sample of 185 students, aged 16 to 25: "78% female students agreed to take part in the extensive survey compared to 22% male." The students answered questions about their sexual histories and their awareness of the STD chlamydia. The female arts students were found to be "younger, more likely to be sexually active and to report having little or no knowledge of chlamydia." The science guys, by contrast, had the least sex, even though many were older.

The explanations ranged from cultural (many of the male science students are foreign) to the stereotypical: as one psychotherapist puts it in the article, "Who are the people at unis that go to the rave parties and the bar? …It's not the nerdy boy science students." The disturbing thing about these findings is of course the fact that the population apparently most at risk — young women — is least educated about sexual health. While it seems premature to fault the universities in question, it does seem that, if a study such as this can pinpoint risk, addressing it should be that much easier. To this extent, such reports one can only help raise consciousness. However, it does seem like anything that can serve to perpetuate generalizations about the "easiness" of certain populations (see: the article's tone) is worrisome. After all, these women admitted to being sexually active, nothing more — why does this immediately become cause for innuendo and cheap jokes? While sexual ignorance should be targeted, sex itself should not be stigmatized — and one hopes this was not the study's intent. By the same token, neither should male virgins be mocked! It's a fine line — especially for young people — between hackneyed, stereotyped generalities and the people who have to live in their shadow.

'Females Studying Arts Sexually Active' [Times of India]

For instance: Do you prefer a bath or a shower? Do you tend to have chapped lips or use Chapstick? Do you drink lager or gin and tonic? But! Does being a man who likes to bathe really mean he's in touch with his feminine side? Does being a woman who likes to shop and spend a day at the spa really mean she's a "typical" female?

According to the scoring of this questionnaire, (put together by Phillip Hodson, of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy), even if you're a woman who watches football and hates to shop, you're not necessarily a tomboy, "just a girl who dares to be different." Dares? And! If you're a man who moisturizes and can't find his keys, you're "in touch with your femininity," which could help you "empathize with the opposite sex."

The question is: If we're living in an age when women box and race cars and men wax their hair and shop, is there such a thing as "typical" behavior for your gender anymore? (And! What kind of score did you get? I'm a 9, which is in the "middle ground" but closer to the manly side, heh.)

Questionnaire: Are you gender typical?, Scoring [The Independent]

Seriously, given that you got attacked from the left for appearing a little squishy on abortion during your time in the Illinois legislature and you've still got Hillary supporters to court, it probably wasn't the most prescient time to say this:

I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that "mental distress" qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.

Baby, that ain't what we need to hear. I miss the days when you used to whisper sweet nothings in my direction, things about that timely Iraq withdrawal and supporting a woman's right to choose. I'll admit my heart beat faster hearing you yell "Yes we can," and "We are the change that we have been waiting for." But, Barry, baby, "as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions" is a total lady-bonerkiller.

And, honey, you totally put the kibosh on my mood with this little nugget:

I think we know that abortions rise when unwanted pregnancies rise. So, if we are continuing what has been a promising trend in the reduction of teen pregnancies, through education and abstinence education giving good information to teenagers. That is important—emphasizing the sacredness of sexual behavior to our children. I think that’s something that we can encourage. I think encouraging adoptions in a significant way. I think the proper role of government. So there are ways that we can make a difference, and those are going to be things I focus on when I am president.

Barry, ignorance is not sexy. Abstinence education? Oh, Barry, we all know that's not effective even though the fundies love hearing about it. Whose love do you want? Ours or theirs?

Look, I'm not trying to be clingy here. I know that everyone needs friends in their life, and I'm all about you making new friends. Don't think this is about that. I'm trying really hard not to be worried about your fidelity or to how you'll live up to the promises you made, but you're not making it easy. You can't just whisper "January 2009" in my ear anymore and send tingles up my spine. You have to say things like "universal health coverage" and "your body, your choice" and "comprehensive sex education" and "complete withdrawal from Iraq" and you have to mean it if you want to get my juices flowing again. Just try it, you'll remember how damn good it feels, and so will I.

— Me

Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007 [National Journal]
A Q&A With Barack Obama [Relevant]
Obama Supports FISA Legislation, Angering Left [Washington Post]
Bush's Faith-Based Programs Will Remain [San Francisco Chronicle]
Obama May Consider Slowing Iraq Withdrawal [Washington Post]
Abstinence-Only Education Ineffective In Preventing, Delaying Sex Among Teens, Study Says [Medical News Today]

In an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Marybeth T. Hagan says that when she first heard about the transgender child, she exclaimed, "Where is the school? California?" (It seems that in Marybeth's world, transgender students are a product of new age methodology and organic produce.) Hagan, shocked to find out that this was occurring in her own backyard, objected to the way the situation was handled, because she feels that parents were not given enough advanced warning. "Introduction of sexual abuse prevention programs over the years should have taught these educators that most parents like to have a say in all aspects of their children's sexual education - particularly one that could be controversial," she reasons.

Other parents have spoken out harshly on the Haverford Township blog and eight parents called the principal to ask that their children not attend the transgender counseling session, according to the Inquirer. I have no doubt that the educators thought long and hard about how to present this issue to their students — according to reports, they consulted transgender experts, the student's family, and child psychologists. One parent, Valerie Huff, whose daughter is friends with the transgender student, thinks that the letter didn't need to go out in the first place, as "The kids don't make any big deal about it at all." It's not surprising in the least that 9-year-olds are being more open minded about differences than some of their parents.

School Challenge: Transgender Student Is Age 9 [Philadelphia Inquirer]
3rd-graders Asked To Help Classmate in Gender Change [World Net Daily]
School's Sensitivity Is Off-Target [Philadelphia Inquirer]

Earlier: Parents Of Transgender Boys Take Different, Provocative Paths
Controversial Treatment Allows Transgender Children To Delay Puberty

"Sooo, sad girls? of course. that was my jam when i was younger. i think i thought sad = smart," said Don. Added Alex helpfully: "Well, troubled + hot = hotter." And Jeff: "Hmmm, kind of. i think a lot of people think they're gonna be the "solver" of problems. usually you learn after a little interaction that you're just gonna get to witness." Right. And you can't do anything about them. Because human life is meaningless. So...best to hook up with chicks who don't bother worrying about all that? Fuck if I know, but I think I just got bored with my own torment.

In A New Generation Of College Students, Many Opt For The Life Examined [NYT] (Btw, far be it from me, but I don't think this story is actually supported by any real data, not that it matters, especially considering we don't even know why we're here.)
Bonus: Something on Sartre and de Beauvoir for your pointless enjoyment [Literary Review]

The laws in Virgina, Maryland and Washington, D.C. consider sexual offenses by schoolchildren to be "improper physical contact against a student that is offensive, undesirable, and/or unwanted as determined by the victim." There's no debate that unwanted touching is an offense. But the schools are enforcing a zero-tolerance policy that involves the authorities: The police were contacted after Randy Castro's playground spank. (Since the episode in November, Randy has been calling himself a "bad boy," his mother says.) The girl's mother, Margarita DeLeon, was also contacted by the school, and says her daughter admitted that she didn't like being hit but quickly forgot about it. "[Randy] didn't mean anything by it. I'm upset with the school," DeLeon says.

It would be easy to blame hip-hop videos, Bratz and reality TV for these kids turning into "sexual harassers." But isn't exploring boundaries and figuring out what's a "no-no" just something kids do? (Whom among us never touched a classmate or played doctor?) Human development is about testing, learning, trying things out. Says psychologist Ted Feinberg: "Kids can be exploratory in behavior, they can mimic what they see on TV." Does that mean that they should have the "sexual harasser" label forever in their school files?

For Little Children, Grown-Up Labels As Sexual Harassers, Harassment Under the Law [Washington Post]
Earlier: Two Colorado 5-Year-Olds "Investigated" For Sexual Harassment

Nicola says, "I was worried he might find me inadequate," but "being with someone with so much experience has its perks. He's by far the best lover I've ever had."

So what is it about "the number"? Do you feel the same way about a 40-year-old virgin as you do about the 18-year-old girl who has slept with 50 men? Is it weird if a guy has had fewer partners than you have? And if you liked someone, and then found out he'd been with 63 women — or more — would it change the way you felt about him?

Between You, Me And The Bedpost [Guardian]
How Many Lovers Has Your Bloke Had? [Mirror]
I Was Sex Addict At The Age Of 16 [The Sun]
Earlier:Teens: Virginity Is Really Overrated