I really feel like I shouldn’t have to write this post, but I fear that all too many people don’t understand basic hygiene well enough that it’s warranted.

One of my readers pointed out that in a Savage Love podcast sometime back (Episode 188 at the 5:30 mark) a man had a question about his girlfriend who’s “lady parts” smelled bad.  He said that even after she got out of the shower, she still smelled bad and he thought that she didn’t even rinse her parts.  He thought that it should be okay to wash her “vagina,” but said he had heard that it was bad and so was calling Dan to find out the truth. Dan completely missed what the caller was actually asking, told him it definitely wasn’t a good idea to get soap into her “vagina,” and encouraged the reader to send his girlfriend to the gynecologist.  The problem is that these people were all talking at cross purposes because they were using language in a fuzzy way.

In terms of a woman’s lower genitalia, the outer part that you can see is the vulva and it includes the mons (pubic mound), the clitoris, the labia (inner and outer), and the perenium.  In the vulva there is an opening to the vagina, which is the canal through which babies pass and into which you put a penis.  The entire area is not the vagina, that’s as stupid as calling the entire front of the head the “nose,” since that part sticks out.

Do you see the problem yet? It’s true that you shouldn’t get soap inside the vaginal canal, but it’s not true that you shouldn’t wash your vulva.  In fact, you very much should be washing your vulva as otherwise dried urine, sweat, oil, and dead skin will accumulate and cause a bad smell, the same as it does with the male penis, especially on unmutilated men.  Failing to use the correct terms for the body can result in failing to understand proper medical advice.

I find it truly sad that people don’t even know the name for their body parts because of the christian fear of sexuality and hatred of the body prevents us from having proper sex education in schools and real discussions around these issues.

Photo Credit: Wiki Commons

I often get asked, because I advocate that sexual attraction is a response to values, whether physical beauty is a value.  The intention of the question is, of course, to see if I think that physical beauty is a sufficient value to justify sexual activity.  I’ve always thought this was an interesting question and I think it’s time we analyzed it in depth—although I’m not sure I have an answer to this yet.  So, as with my other aporia, consider this an open question.

Let us start by looking at the question of whether physical beauty is a value.  I think it is generally agreed that physical beauty is at least some kind of value.  In Attic Greek culture, for example, the human form was held up as one of the ideals of beauty: as one of the most beautiful objects in existence and I think this is right.  Unfortunately, here as in many places, the mystic nonsense of the christians corrupted this pure idea and held that the body was shameful and base, that it was a platonic prison of the soul which had to be ignored as much as possible in order for the soul to reach some special place after death.  This hatred of the physical body has manifested in strange ways, such as the idea that natural functions such as breast-feeding are sexual (since in breast-feeding a breast is used and breasts are always sexual?).  The Greeks did not think that beautiful bodies were always being sexual.  Indeed, the early Olympic games were played in the nude and one of the great values that the spectators derived was from the sight of the beautiful and strong bodies moving well and exerting themselves.

For a rational person, physical beauty is at least some kind of value.  Furthermore, it seems to be a value in a similar way that art is a value.  While art is a metaphysical recreation of reality according to the artist’s value judgments, that is the artist portrays the world according to how he sees it and what he thinks is important, a physically beautiful person can resonate with a person’s sense of life and value judgments as well.  That is, if a person values human life, living well, and human virtue, then he will respond positively to a beautiful person.  Now whether or not this is justified is a different question, but it is the case that we see beautiful people as instances of what humans could look like, of humans that are living well in the sense of maintaining their bodies well and presenting themselves well, and who are living well in the moral sense and succeeding at life.  It is psychologically true that we see beautiful people as good and think of ugly people as evil.  This idea was well known in Greek culture and they thought that the face was a window to the soul: that one’s moral character reflected out and either made one more or less beautiful.  As an interesting aside, this idea also plays a prominent role in Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Grey, where Dorian’s evil actions are reflected only on the painting of him and since his face and body remain beautiful and youthful, people think that he is therefore good.  Whether or not we are justified in inducing a person’s moral character from their physical appearance, and likely we are usually not justified in this, it remains a fact that we naturally do this.

An interesting line of inquiry might be whether beauty is naturally pleasant and whether we project our moral framework onto it in order to see it as even more attractive and pleasant, since we are attracted to what we think is good and find it pleasant.  I imagine this is the case, as I have argued elsewhere that our moral judgments can override the value of physical beauty and that if we know a physically beautiful person who is a moral monster, that we cannot help but to see their beauty as tainted and them as less beautiful than they would be if their character were better.  Furthermore, that is we know them to be immoral, that we cannot see them as sexually attractive (except for, perhaps, in some abstract way, but that we cannot respond to them sexually).

When we meet a person who is a cognitive blank to us, where we know nothing of them or their character, we can still judge them aesthetically as beautiful or not.  However, I think in order to do this, I think we have to project our moral framework onto them and project a good character.  I think we naturally want to think of beauty as good and since we already respond to it at a primitive level, we want to have a fuller response, so we flesh out their persona with our own judgments in order to have a full response to them.  We want them to be the kind of person that we would be very attracted to and want to know and so we project our framework onto them so that we see them as robustly good.  On the other hand, it could be simply that we see beauty as a natural good and therefore as embodying our values (which we think are good), and therefore we think that since beauty is a good that it must be conjoined by moral good, since we think that the beauty is caused from within.

I want to return to an earlier point and ask whether beauty is some sort of natural good.  I want to say that yet, it is.  Much in the same way seeing the beauty of a sunset or an artwork is a great value, I think human beauty is also a value.  We need, as a psychological fact, to see beauty in life.  It is a reaffirmation of the beauty of existence and of the good in the world.  It is an encouragement to keep fighting against evil and of the black blanket of destruction it brings.  Beauty brings us joy and motivation: it is like spiritual fuel.  Human beauty is, to me at least, one of the highest kinds of beauty as I value humanity.

Several obvious questions arise: what is the connection between aesthetic judgments of beauty and moral judgments of beauty?  Is there such a thing as a moral judgment of beauty or can moral judgements only augment or detract from beauty?  I think it is the latter.  There are some people who are so ugly that even an exemplary soul would not make me think they were attractive: I might respect them for their character, but they would not become attractive if they were physically ugly enough.  So, it’s not the case that there is a moral judgment of beauty.  There is an aesthetic judgment of beauty and a moral judgment overlay that greatly influences our response to the physical characteristics.  I actually don’t think that one can maintain a judgement of aesthetic beauty in the face of knowledge of a bad immorality and a bad character.

Beauty is, then, a value, but only when combined with a good character: beauty is not a self-justifying value.  However, beauty is an important value and it should not be minimized.

I think it’s also important to consider that sexual attraction is not the same as physical beauty: you might judge someone as physically beautiful, but not sexually attractive.  If we are happily partnered and monogamous, and therefore not looking for new partners, we’re much more likely to experience a person’s physical beauty without having a sexual response to it.  This, though, raises another question: does our judgment of beauty necessarily contain a sexual judgment?  Is saying that you think a person is beautiful connected to you saying you would have sex with a person?  Is it the same thing?  I’m not sure.  I think that they can be different, that one can make an aesthetic judgment of beauty without necessarily implying the further sexual step.

One final, and very important, question that we still need to address: what ultimately justifies sexual activity?  Is beauty a sufficient reason to have sex with a person?  I think, given the foregoing, that the answer is a very qualified yes.  If the beautiful person is also a good person, if you’re not treating sex lightly, and if it’s not harming other values in your life, then I think it’s perfectly moral to have sex with a person because they are beautiful.  On the other hand, if you ignore and evade a person’s bad character in order to justify having sex with them, then it is immoral.

This is all I have to say on the topic right now.  I welcome feedback on this aporia and I will write another essay at some point in the future with my more considered opinion.  I hope that this has at least raised some interesting questions for you.

One of the things I hate most about christianity, and there is oh so much I hate about it, is the christian propensity to find offense in everything they don’t like and to feel indignation when they are rebuffed: their feeling that they are always right and everyone else is always wrong. This is exemplified by the case of Dan Savage a week or so ago who rightly criticized christians for attacking gays and gay rights, because of the supposed biblical basis for this, while ignoring the rest of the craziness in the bible.  In short, for the complete lack of any integrity that christians demonstrate when they pick and choose from among their god’s completely true and without error book of revelations.

Savage’s speech, at a 3,000-student gathering of young journalists in Seattle, linked bullying of gay kids with biblical denunciations of homosexuality. Savage, noting the Bible also banned masturbation and the eating of shellfish, said, “We ignore the bullshit in the Bible about all sorts of things.”

In the speech, Savage, citing Sam Harris’ “Letter to a Christian Nation,” said the Bible gave instructions about how to treat slaves. If the Bible erred “on the easiest moral question that humanity has ever faced … What are the odds that the Bible got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong? 100 percent,” said Savage. (LINK)

If there really was a god and I actually believed it, you can be damned sure I wouldn’t violate a single sentence of a book of his revelation.  Of course, it’s just a fantasy, so I don’t have to worry about it.  But you think that people who did believe in it would be more serious about reading such an important book and living by it every moment of every day.

It’s strange, but I don’t remember starting Erosophia.  There was no big debut, no fireworks, no momentous decision.  I think I just wanted to see what all the fuss was about blogging (it was newish back then) and wanted a place to put my thoughts down “on paper”.  That was seven years ago.

Seven years.  I’ve been blogging for seven years now that it’s May.  In some ways it doesn’t feel real.  I’ve put up hundreds of posts, amassed thousands of readers, saved a couple of marriages, become one of the world’s top 100 sex bloggers, and worked to figure out this whole sexuality thing.  Since I started blogging I graduated college, started writing a book, got married, moved to California, started lecturing, and have become something of an expert in sexuality.

I honestly didn’t see any of this coming.  I didn’t set out to create a blog that people would actually read.  I started out just wanting a place to share my ideas.  It’s funny that now I have readers, donors, and even some (volunteer) support staff.  I’ve made a lot of friends through Erosophia and, from the letters I get, I know that my work on sexuality is having an impact around the world.

If you like what I’m doing here, help support Erosophia!  You can donate money directly by using the donate button in the Erosophia sidebar on the right, send a PayPal or Amazon payment to Jason(at)JasonStotts.com, or even mail me a check. On the other hand, your donation doesn’t have to be through monetary contributions (although please do feel free to donate!), but could be no more than simply sending me an email (Jason(at)JasonStotts.com) telling me how my work has impacted your life.  These letters are like spiritual fuel to me and they help to keep me motivated to keep pursuing my work on sex.  You can also support Erosophia monetarily without having to spend a dime.  How?  By buying through Amazon.  If you use my referral link and purchase things on Amazon that you would purchase elsewhere, you’ll save yourself some money and I’ll get a small referral fee for everything you buy. Buying books for a class?  Buying a new laptop?  Buying sex toys, condoms, or lube?  Use my Amazon referral link and anything you spend on Amazon will help support Erosophia, without costing you a dime and probably saving you money.

So, what’s in Erosophia’s future?  I have no idea!  I’m certainly going to keep writing and challenging people’s preconceived ideas about sexuality.  I’m also still working on getting the podcast underway, but I could really use some technical help with audio editing and making the audio sound better.  I’m going to be lecturing around the country again this year and I hope to come to some new conferences and meet new people.  I’m also considering doing some (paid) live advice over the phone or skype.  If you’re interested in that, email me and we’ll go from there.

I want to thank all of you, Erosophia’s readers, supporters, donors, and friends.  It’s been a great 7 years so far and I’m sure it will be even better in the year to come.

How can we hope to have healthy and successful lives, including sex lives, if we feel shame at the things that are necessary to maintain our society?  If you don’t support free markets, then you don’t support freedom of the individual and it’s only a matter of time before someone will be along to take control.

The registration for ATLOSCon 2012 in Atlanta is now live!  That means it’s time for you to register for my class and my workshop on sex.  Oh, you didn’t know that you’d be able to see me speaking live this year?  Well, read on.

This year at ATLOSCon I’m going to be delivering a class on Sexual Attraction and Fantasy as well as a workshop on more advanced sexual techniques.

Sexual Attraction and Fantasy: A Philosophical Exploration

What causes sexual attraction? Is it simply a physical response to a person’s body or is there something more going on? In this talk, I will delve into the deeper nature of sexual attractions and examine the cognitive element of sexual attraction and how it can enhance or destroy attractions. Further, we will look at the role of fantasy both by itself and its role in sexual attraction. Through this, we shall come to see that sexual attraction is more than merely a physical response and is, in fact, a robust phenomenon that ties together much more of ourselves than is commonly thought.

and

Practical Sexuality Workshop

Join your fellow conference attendees in a workshop on practical sexual skills hosted by Jason Stotts, author of Erosophia (one of the top 100 sex blogs of 2011). The workshop will be in three parts. The first part is an in-depth inquiry into anal eroticism, including anal sex and prostate play. The second part is all about orgasms, both male and female, including orgasmic edge play (also called extended orgasms or massive orgasms) and orgasm denial. The third part will be open Q&A where the floor will be opened to questions from attendees who can either ask questions there or submit them in advance if they’re not comfortable asking in front of the group. The workshop will be interactive and participation is encouraged. Price: $10 per person.

The workshop is obviously adult oriented in nature and no one under 18 will be permitted to attend. The workshop is open to singles, couples, poly-groups, and everyone of any orientation.

If you’re going to be in the Atlanta area, come check out ATLOSCon and my classes.  It’s a really great weekend packed with a lot of good speakers.  You’ll also meet some really great people.  If you do end up in one of my classes, come say hi and introduce yourself.  I love to meet readers.

I think it’s funny how many christians don’t know the origins of most of the easter symbols.  Why, for example, are bunnies and eggs associated with zombies?  The answer, of course, is the early christians adopted the pagan symbols for fertility: rabbits that multiply quickly and eggs that are the symbol of life about to begin.  This is because the pagans respected nature and tried to stay in tune with it and in the Spring, animals begin to reproduce so that their young can be born under conditions that make it much more likely they will survive and be ready to face the winter.  The christians, however, perverted these natural symbols and stripped them of all meaning, such that now there are bunnies, eggs, and zombies, but no apparent connection between them.  Thus, does christianity pervert all that it touches.

I think that this Spring we should forget about the zombies and celebrate fertility by reflecting on the role of sexuality in our lives.  I think we should celebrate reproduction by thanking our parents and grandparents, if they’re still alive, and appreciating our children, if we have any.  I think that we should remember that we are animals, a very special kind, to be sure, but animals nonetheless and we should not rail against this fact of nature, but embrace it and our animality.  In short, we should do away with christian mythology and celebrate our lives and our sexuality.

The movie The Hunger Games has been doing exceptionally well in the box office and it’s no surprise.  The Hunger Games are poignant, dramatic, and moving.  It is the story of children caught up in the machine of an all powerful government who controls the very lives of its citizens and kills them for sport and to keep the others in line.  It is the dramatization of what happens when the state gains absolute power.  But, this post is not about how The Hunger Games is all too apropos to the direction our own government is heading.  No, this post is about something entirely different.

In The Hunger Games, we see the viciciousness of a world in which children have to murder each other for sport, to appease their government, and to help keep the subjegated masses under control.  We watch these children murder each other on screen, much as the ficitious residents of Panem do and we think about what a good shot Katniss is with her bow or how powerful Cato is.  But, do we wonder about how we are so used to violence and death that the idea of even children killing each other as pets of their government doesn’t faze us?  Do we not worry what has become of our humanity when children killing children is not absolutely shocking?

Moreover, do we not realize what is suspiciously absent from the film?  In the book, Katniss remarks that the height of fashion for tributes is often nudity and she is relieved that her stylist Cinna doesn’t just make her go out naked or perhaps covered in just coal dust.  There are scenes of her showering in the book, of being worked on naked by her prep team to look good for her death, and even of her bathing in the river during the games.  These scenes are absent in the movie.  Why?  Because they contain nudity.  Of children.  And that is unacceptable in our culture.  It’s fine to watch them murder each other, but god forbid we see their nude bodies, whether they are being sexual or not.  And let me point out that I say “god forbid” very pointedly, becuase it is the christian preoccupation with the evil of the body, the sinful nature of the flesh, and the very evil of our “coroporeal prison” that has brought us to this day when to see children murder each other is fine, but to see their exposed bodies is not.  And to think that the christians call us immoral.

If you haven’t considered why you think it’s okay for children to murder each other, but not to be naked on screen, please pause and ask yourself that now.  There was no nudity in the movie because that would have moved their rating from PG-13 to R.  Not the murder of children by other children. Simple nudity.  Nudity in context of a story, nudity because it is part of life, nudity because it is natural.  Not even sexuality, not even gratuitous nudity, just simple nudity can move the rating from PG-13 to R, whereas the murder of children cannot.  What an interesting time we live in.

Our culture, corrupted with the taint of christianity, is so perverse that murder is more desirable to see than the natural state of our bodies.  I can think of no more obvious sign that everything about christianity is set up as the opposite of what is good and fine in life.  I can think of no more telling example than this that christianity is truly the great inversion of morality, the turning of morality from being an aid to achieve a good life to being nothing more than a path to perversion and death.  That christianity is nothing more than the worship of death.

It doesn’t have to be this way.  The day is not too late.  We are still alive.  We still have our minds.  We are still free to act, to think, to write.  We can reconsider our positions, reconsider why we believe the things we do.  We can throw off the shackles of irrationality and look at things anew in the light of reason.  We can regain our humanity one person at a time and retake our culture.  And what a culture it was at one point, the American Dream: Freedom, Independence, Ingenuity, Mastery over Nature, Self-Reliance, a Government that is Servant and not Master.  A dream that reasonable men and women would be able to live out their lives on their own terms, free to succeed or fail on their own merits.  The dream began to fade because the philosophy on which is was based was not yet ready.  And make no mistake, culture is only a reflection of philosophy, of ideas.  Without the right ideas upon which to build, the structure slowly collapsed in on itself.  But it is not gone yet and the philosophy is now ready.

We can start again in this noble land where the ideals are good and true, even if they are beginning to be corrupted.  We can replace their poor foundations with strong ones made from good ideas and begin to build again.  Through reason and human intelligence, we can reraise our flags of virtue and rebuild our society in the light of reason.  We will have to throw off all scraps of faith, of desire to control the lives of others, of the desire to live off of others, of weakness and frailty, and replace these things with reason, productiveness, independence, and self-reliance.  We can do it.  The day is not too late.  The sparks are lit.  The only quesiton that remains is are we willing to commit ourselves fully to reason and fans the flames to immolate this culture corrupted by faith and religion and build anew through reason to the glory of man?

I never thought that I might live to see the day that I said MTV has a good show on the air.  Today is, however, that day.  They’ve enlisted Dan Savage, who’s advice on relationships and sex is superb (even if some of his politics are disagreeable), to travel the country to different college campuses, speak, and answer student questions.  The first episode of the show is out now for free and I recommend you take a look. Dan also has a podcast and blog where you can go to find answers to just about any question you can think of, and probably many you’ve never thought of.