Sex Education

TMI Tuesday: Let’s Talk About Sex

jackandjillcpl13 Comments
Posted in Funny Hair as Erogenous Zone Queef Sex Education TMI Tuesday voyeurism/exhibitionism Written by Both

Jack’s Answers
1. What sexual act arouses you the most? For that matter, what nonsexual act arouses you the most?
I like watching Jill – or any woman – masturbate. That’s a surefire way to get me worked up. If we’re talking about one- (or two-) on-one sexual activity, oral sex. That gets me pretty aroused. There are lots of things that I like to do sexually, but by the time I’m doing them I’m already aroused. So I’m going to say watching female masturbation, and oral sex. As far as nonsexual acts, eating, followed by depositing large amounts of money in my bank account.
2. What is your signature or “go to” move that is sure to get a lover in the mood for sex?
For Jill, it’s kissing her neck. This turns her into a puddle.
3. Do you queef?
I haven’t yet. I’m honestly not that curious to find out if I would. [EDIT: Technically speaking I guess I can’t queef, as it’s a bodily function that occurs in the vagina only. I suppose that expelling air out of the anus would just be a fart.]
4. What’s the weirdest thing that’s happened to YOU as a result of your sex writings (e.g., blog, erotica, sex toy reviews)? (borrowed from Insatiabear)
Hard to say. Nothing immediately comes to mind. Despite the fact that we’re super-hot sex bloggers who Tweet naughty pictures and regularly participate in OHNT, we’re pretty much regular people and no aliens have seen fit to abduct us for nefarious sexual purposes. Although on Saturday we did go to a sex club as much for the purposes of documenting the experience on our blog as out of general curiosity. It still wasn’t that weird. I’m thinking “weird” would be, say, one of our followers recognizing my wife’s breasts in public.
5. Have you ever had sex while someone watched?
…someone else was in the room?
…someone else in the bed, next to you and the person you’re having sex with?
What were the circumstances?
Yes. Before I met Jill, a girlfriend and I used to have semi-regular same-room sex with another couple, and it was pretty hot. Since meeting Jill, we’ve had same-room sex with a different couple (in the dark), same-room oral, and invited a single friend of ours over to watch us fuck. We’ve also had threesomes, which included Jill and I fucking while our third watched, or possibly texted or checked Facebook on her phone. [EDIT: I’m not sure how neither Jill nor I remembered to include mention of our sex club adventures this weekend. They certainly qualify.]
6. When it comes to sex, and discussing it with your teen have you or would you:
a. Let school sex education handle it
b. Hand the teen a book or point them to a website
c. Talk frankly and openly
d. Avoid it all together–society, friends, and the internet will give all the info needed
I’m tempted to say (d), let society, the internet, etc. do our work for us. That’s how I learned about sex, and I have no regrets whatsoever. However, by the time our daughter is in need of sex ed, I can’t imagine what kind of information (or more likely, misinformation) will be circulating around the playground, be it an actual playground or a virtual one. Therefore I suppose we’d better do our job as parents and talk to her. You have no idea how badly I wish I could just refer her to a reputable and sex-positive website like Scarleteen, and leave it at that, but despite my innate lack of comfort talking sex with my child, I hope that I will overcome it and be able to use said website as a supplement to our talks. Then again, by the time our daughter is a teenager we might very well be nearing senility.
Click Here, it’s important
Bonus: Remember the song, “I’m too sexy?” CLICK to refresh your memory
What are you too sexy for?
My clothes. There is nothing that I can possibly wear that could make me hotter than I am without it.
Jill’s Answers
1. What sexual act arouses you the most? For that matter, what nonsexual act arouses you the most?
The sexual act that arouses me the most is probably being kissed all over my body, not just in the places you’d expect. My neck, my shoulders, my stomach, my thighs, my feet. Do that to me and you’ll make me very wet without even touching my pussy. The nonsexual act is definitely getting my hair washed. That turns me on so much that I once had an orgasm while at the hairdresser.
2. What is your signature or “go to” move that is sure to get a lover in the mood for sex?
In the case of Jack, kissing him while placing my hand on his cock, or placing his hand between my legs.
3. Do you queef?
Yes, sometimes when I’ve been fucked from behind. Sometimes Jack pumps a lot of air into me that way. It’s got to come out somehow.
4. What’s the weirdest thing that’s happened to YOU as a result of your sex writings (e.g., blog, erotica, sex toy reviews)? (borrowed from Insatiabear)
I don’t think anything weird has happened as a result of our blogging and Tweeting. We have been asked by Eden Fantasys to review sex toys, and while it was out of the ordinary I wouldn’t say it was weird. Nothing really weird has happened to us, but I wouldn’t mind if something did, as long as it was hot.
5. Have you ever had sex while someone watched?
…someone else was in the room?
…someone else in the bed, next to you and the person you’re having sex with?
What were the circumstances?
Yes, I have done this. I frequently masturbate while Jack watches. I know that this isn’t what was meant, but I thought I would include it. I have had penetrative sex with other people in the room. Once, Jack and I invited a friend over to watch us have sex. It was really hot to think that he enjoyed our performance, even though he didn’t whip out his cock and play with it or anything. I’m happy to show off, but I prefer knowing that my audience appreciates it. In fact, before I met Jack I had sex with a guy I was dating, and his roommate came into the bedroom and watched and masturbated. He came all over the place. Now that was hot!
6. When it comes to sex, and discussing it with your teen have you or would you:
a. Let school sex education handle it
b. Hand the teen a book or point them to a website
c. Talk frankly and openly
d. Avoid it all together–society, friends, and the internet will give all the info needed
Our daughter is not yet a teen, so we have not yet addressed the topic of sex. We understand the need to possibly address it before the teen years, but at less than two years old, it’s probably not a priority right now. We understand that she will probably pick up some information from friends, as this is where Jack and I got much of our sexual education. But we would like to be able to have open, honest discussions about sex with her, and for her to feel like she can ask us anything without fear of punishment or ridicule. If she is not comfortable talking to us about it, as neither of us were comfortable talking about sex with our own parents, she has many aunts who are more than willing to talk with her about it.
Click Here, it’s important
Bonus: Remember the song, “I’m too sexy?” CLICK to refresh your memory
What are you too sexy for?
My job. There are things I do sexually that, if made public, could jeopardize my career.

While We’re on the Subject of Ignorant People Talking About Sex…

jackandjillcpl2 Comments
Posted in Lynette Burrows Sex Education Sex-negative right-wing idiots Teachers are not usually pedophiles written by Jack
Professionals attack the BBC for putting teachers at risk after its decision to broadcast a clip during Sunday Morning Live that compared sex education teachers to paedophiles
“I think parents have the absolute right to protect their children from this sort of education which is so unhelpfully obsessed with destroying childhood innocence, in a way that’s reminiscent of paedophilia. To me, anyone who wants to talk dirty to little children is a danger to them.”
These words, from the lips of “family values” campaigner Lynette Burrows, were broadcast last weekend as part of a pre-recorded video package on the BBC‘s Sunday Morning Live show to kick off a “debate” about sex education.
The comments were left unchallenged, and the show continued with a studio discussion in which Burrows was joined by a historian and a neoconservative lobbyist, rather than, say, a sex education professional or similar expert. The lack of a qualified speaker in the studio removed the possibility of any informed discussion, and things veered downhill from there.
Other guests were piped in by phone or webcam. The only person with professional experience relevant to the debate, sex education teacher Alice Hoyle, was given seconds to “justify why I am not a paedophile on national TV” before being cut off in favour of a Rabbi (decent, to be fair), and a spokesman from the Campaign for Real Education who ranted unpleasantly about homosexuality in schools. It wasn’t a debate so much as a festival of ignorance.
Burrows’ comments were idiotic, but so was the decision to broadcast them unchallenged, and the BBC have some serious questions to answer about their editorial judgement. One viewer complained to Auntie, and their response to her was as depressing as it was tediously predictable:
“We make no editorial comment or judgement on the views expressed by contributors to our programmes, and our aim is simply to provide enough information for viewers to make up their own minds.
“This may include hearing opinions which some people may personally disagree with but which individuals may be fully entitled to hold in the context of legitimate debate.”
Firstly, if you give more exposure or weight to one side of the discussion, or you fail to include experts in the debate, then you are making an editorial judgement whether you mean to or not. You can’t choose which views to provide a platform for – doubtless there are many the BBC wouldn’t air – and then pretend that this somehow doesn’t involve making a judgement about their legitimacy. Especially when you go on to describe them as “legitimate”.
Secondly, not all opinions are equal, or legitimate. The BBC’s position here is a kind of anti-journalism, what Jay Rosen termed “the view from nowhere”. As Rosen once explained, “it places the journalist between polarized extremes, and calls that neither-nor position ‘impartial’.”
Of course it isn’t impartial, merely cowardly. Repeating every conceivable opinion without challenge is not being objective, neither is setting up a debate with the premise that both points of view are equally valid – that road leads us to creationists on David Attenborough specials.
Thirdly, the segment failed to enlighten or inform at even the most basic level. No experts were included in the studio discussion to explain their field, no substantial discussion of the evidence occurred, and the segment didn’t even attempt to explain what sex education is, or what it involves.
Meanwhile Burrows was free to claim variously that teen pregnancies are rising, that teachers “want to talk dirty to little children”, and that “it is now generally accepted that [sex education] hasn’t worked.” These aren’t matters of opinion but claims of fact, and for the presenter to leave them unchallenged is an abdication of professional responsibility.
The BBC’s viewers may have been seriously misled by their shambolic approach to the topic, and thousands of dedicated professionals have not only had their work grossly misrepresented, but have been subjected to vile and unfounded smears that may even put them at risk. As lecturer and researcher Dr Petra Boynton put it to me today:
“Their play at impartial broadcasting actually allows them to let a guest be accused of something that’s not only false, but is objectionable and could potentially have a far-reaching impact on their career, family life and personal safety.”
Dr John Lloyd, policy adviser of the PSHE Association, which represents those teaching personal, social, health and economic education, echoed Boynton’s concerns, telling me:
“The PSHE Assocation, the subject association for personal, social, health and economic education (of which sex and relationships education is a key component) says that it is very concerned that such extreme language puts those teaching SRE at risk.”
The Family Planning Association have also condemned the show in a statement released online today which condemns Lynette Burrows’s views as “a gross distortion of what relationships and sex education is”, asking broadcasters to “stop giving air time to the minority who deliberately seek to distort what sex and relationships education is.”
The failure of programmes like Sunday Morning Live to deal with these issues responsibly leaves professionals wondering why they should bother to engage with the media on these topics at all. Alice Hoyle, the teacher who was briefly allowed to respond via webcam, has been left shocked by the experience, and discusses it at length in a series of blog posts. “Equating me to a paedophile is actually the most foul, upsetting and disgusting thing that has ever been said to me.”
Why go back? As Dr Boynton told me:
“We’re constantly being told as practitioners and academics that we must ‘engage’ with the public via the media, but there is little or no support for us when we bravely do this (knowing how controversial sex/relationships issues are) and face abuse and ridicule. The constant focus on discussions as ‘false debates’ as well as the media’s lack of understanding of basic sex ed issues means we’re having our time wasted at best, but being personally and professionally abused at worst.”
It’s a situation that helps nobody, least of all those the BBC is supposed to serve and inform.
The issue here seems to be free speech versus journalistic responsibility. We’re all for personal freedoms – anyone who’s read much of this blog should have already figured that out – and we would certainly defend the right of the press to print or broadcast something controversial. At this point, though, isn’t it just a “coulda versus shoulda” argument? In other words, just because you can, does that mean you should? I live in the United States, the home of Fox News, so I am not unfamiliar with the concept of one-sided media coverage. In our opinion, narrow-minded people who wear their willful ignorance as a badge of honor are the real problem, but even in present-day, with seemingly everyone beholden to special interests, a responsible media outlet owes it to all parties, especially its audience, to cover all sides of a story rather than furthering a preconceived agenda.