Dear Aretha & Susie:

I'm a 19-year-old guy who's been with my girlfriend for four years. The sex is great- she's willing and more then able- but her lack of personal grooming is an issue. She does woman-scape, but very little. I love giving her oral sex but her hair has got to go! What can I do to get her to clean up?

-Hair Freeman

Aretha: If you have the nerve to ask your lover to shave, be prepared. It's on the level of "you need to lose weight."

There is no asking "nicely."

Susie: What does "woman-scape" mean?

Aretha: Shaving!

Susie: How can their sex be "great" and he "loves" going down on her, but then he gets uptight about something as trivial as her hair? If he has an erection, how bad can it be?

I wonder if he's planning to get out a camera.

Aretha: The only way it's going to happen is if he says something- and she's not going to like it.

Susie: Well, what if he said, "Would you shave ME?" -Make it into his kinky fantasy, and maybe she'll join in the dare. It wouldn't be a "self-esteem" issue.

Aretha: No, she's smart, she'll see right through that. If my boyfriend said to me, "Let's shave!" I'd say, "WHY." If he said,"It would turn me on," - I'd say, "OH REALLY."

Susie: What's so ridiculous is that there's a lot more guys who get off on even the slightest glimpse of pubic hair…

Aretha: Then how come don't hear guys talking about the hotness of pubic hair, only tits and ass?

Susie: It's bravado… how many people say their real sexual preferences in public? Most guys aren't Adrian Colesberry.

Aretha: To be honest, if I were her lover, I can imagine having my preferences about her pubic hair… but if she isn't the type of girl who's already waxing or shaving, then she's not that type- leave it alone."

If you stop going down on her all of sudden, that's trouble too. She'll know something's up.

Susie: I just noticed… you two have been going out for four years- why is it a problem NOW? You would think you'd be so close at this point that anything could come up; you could say anything.

Aretha: If you made it through high school, the worst is over- you oughta be able to talk about pubic hair by now.

Dear Aretha & Susie:

I've been in a relationship for over three years, and for the past year we've been talking about getting married. Since these conversations started, my boyfriend started to expect different things of me sexually. He gets upset if I use "dirty" words like cock, pussy, or fuck. He said, "The mother of my future children doesn't talk like that."

We're having less sex, and the sex we do have is more vanilla. I like vanilla sex, but I would like it more frequently. I'm afraid that he isn't seeing me as a sexual person anymore. If we do get married, I wonder if this will lead him to cheat. One of the things that I liked about our relationship before, was that we had a great sexual connection- and he told me over and over how important sex is to him. So if he can't get it from me, will he look elsewhere? Help!

—Unhappy Angel in the House

Susie: I wouldn't want him to be the father of my children, that's for sure.

Aretha: You're worried about him cheating; I'm more worried about about how controlling he is. He's "Madonna-fying" you.

Susie: And you obviously don't want the prayer candle, you want your hot man back. I don't relish saying this, but what if he's already cheating on you? His libido didn't just disappear. Where did his sex drive go?

Aretha: Anyone who says "The Mother of My Children Doesn't ..." - Deal breaker.

Dear Aretha and Susie:

I'm 18, almost 19. I'm a virgin, but have been hooking up with a friend of mine named Andy for a few months. It recently went as far as mutual hand jobs and phalanges-penetration. He says he absolutely does not want a relationship. I know that our "arrangement" is not exclusive.

I would be very comfortable losing my virginity to him, but I'm stuck on the fact that I WOULD want a relationship.

He's been with five or six girls already. I'm afraid my virginity won't mean anything to him. I don't want it to mean "Everything," but I need it to mean "Something" to the other person, because it would certainly mean something to me.

The first time we hooked up, he told me, "If anything ever happens between us- and you need it to mean something, I can do that for you."

Do you think I should go ahead and lose my virginity to my friend- and get on with my life? Or should I wait until I find someone I'm comfortable around who actually wants a relationship?

-Marguerite

Aretha: He says he can "do" this for you? That doesn't sound too generous. I'm not getting a good impression.

I've gone through this before- you're in a touchy situation, analyzing it all alone, and remembering "single sentences." You end up misleading yourself. It doesn't matter what he said when you first hooked up- it's different now.

Susie: I need a break from the romantic angst. Does he make you horny, as opposed to "comfortable?" When you make out with him, are you dying to do more? I can't emphasize how much that will make a difference in terms of your first time with him.

If you have great sex, you'll always be glad of that experience, even if the two of you don't ride off into the sunset. But if you have mediocre sex with Mr. Aloof, you will either get more hung-up on the unrequited romance, or you will tire of him.

BTW, Mr. Andy doesn't know what he'll feel like after he makes love with you- all this "planning" is rubbish. It's not that much under anyone's control.

Aretha: I don't care what he "says." It will mean something to him; it always does.

Susie: Virginity is wildly overrated.

Aretha: I agree with you about the virginity hype from a feminist p.o.v.- but virginity meant something to me- and it still seems important for most people. It's already SOMETHING for her; you can't argue that away.

Susie: But what is that "something"? It's obviously not about her hymen OR the true meaning of love OR the definitive erotic moment. I'd love her to read Greta Christina's "Are We Having Sex Now or Not?" - Mandatory reading for "virgins." Ex-virgins, too.

Marguerite, follow your gut. If you know you're going to be heartbroken, forget it. Get those "phalanges" out of your life.

Susie's newest and 31st book is Bitten. She blogs at susiebright.com and podcasts about sex and politics weekly on: In Bed With Susie Bright. Aretha is eating Indian Pizza in San Francisco and it is good.

Bennett Gordon, writing for the Utne Reader, says:

Researchers often reduce sex down to its most basic, physical elements, viewing intercourse in terms of function and dysfunction, rather than idiosyncratic preferences.

He — and the Boston Globe's Drake Bennett — are (of course) mostly concerned about Viagra. The latter writes:

At its worst, they warn, [sex science] is pushing us into a sort of sexual arms race as people engage in sex acts that hold little interest for them, partake of a growing pharmacopeia of sex drugs, even get formerly unheard-of cosmetic surgeries to measure up to a fictional sexual ideal.

I don't know that sex science is to blame for that as much as sex marketing — but Gordon and Bennet conflate the two.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the marketing of Viagra. Many people swear by the drug's regenerative properties, but Bennett writes, "the benefits of Viagra and similar pills have to be balanced against the fact that they have made our sex lives seem like something that can - and should - be fixed with a drug."

And, while that's do doubt true, I'm not sure that's an argument for less knowledge or research, even into the mechanics of sex and sexual pleasure.

So what is the problem?

The overly medicalized science isn't just misguided, it also prevents helpful work from being done. Bennett quotes Amy Allina, program director at National Women's Health Network, saying, "We don't really know - and this is a timely one - how unemployment affects a couple's sex life."

Interestingly, 12 years ago, I participated in a sex study of how worry (as opposed to fear) affects arousal... so there was certainly work being done on stress and (at least female) arousal more than a decade ago, even if it Allina and Bennett haven't seen it around.

They do think there is hope, though.

Scientists are now proposing a new, more "humanistic" model of sex, according to Bennett, that respects the idiosyncrasies of people and their relationships. Looking beyond the physiological, sex science could promote a more healthy view of sex as it functions inside of relationships.

Which, again, is great: sex quite often has a psychological component and a social-psychological component, and understanding how those interact with the physiological component is important. But do we have to throw the boner-pills (or the supposedly forthcoming ladyboner pills) out with the proverbial bathwater to get there? Can't we understand our bodies and our minds and our relationships better and thus have better sex?

Are Sex Studies Bad for Sex? [Utne Reader]

Related: Mary Roach: 10 Things You Didn't Know About Orgasm [TED]
My Beautiful Cervix

Earlier: Mary Roach Writes About Sex (And Not Even In a Dirty Way)
Being Cervix-y

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]