First, my let me point out the slightly odd and confusing entrance of the museum. While I’m usually accustomed to entering through a large or at least clear entrance and finding the museum’s store somewhere within or attached to the side, this one’s entry is through the store. Essentially, a visitor would enter a sex-themed store, walk down to the register in the back, purchase tickets there and enter the actual museum through a door in the back corner. I suppose since it’s an unconventional museum anyway, an unconventional setup is allowed.

The first room, appropriately, gives an overview of the history of nudity and sex on film (half of it is dedicated to porn), as well as a section about taboos and censorship in movies. While it was not a very complex setup — backlit panels with written summaries accompanied by video clips on screens — it did supply me with a decent amount of information and an impression of the topic. One panel was actually quite intriguing, as it showcased “Beautiful Agony,” a site dedicated to video clips of the post-climax. I should also mention that while I was getting informed about sex on film, Katy Perry’s “Teenage Dream” was filling up the store — how ironic.

The next room, on the floor above, contained the so-labeled permanent collection, which consisted of a medley of items including an anti-masturbation device, a Keith Haring painting, BDSM toys and both male and female life-size dolls (very Lars and the Real Girl). While not earth-shattering, I definitely enjoyed the eclectic collection assembled there. Much of the items were unusual and historical, and though I had seen or read about many of them, there were still some interesting surprises.

One floor up, I walked into an entire gallery dedicated to sex in the animal realm. In all honesty, it was not very thrilling and shocking in the way that one would expect from such an “unusual” and novel museum, but it was educational nonetheless.  I should say that the section depicting various “gestures” used by bonobos in courting and mating situation was definitely my favorite — bonobos are such fascinating creatures! And the large statue of humping pandas also elicited a smirk.

The second-to-last floor (almost done!) is home to the “F*ck Art” collection, an ensemble of sex-themed pop art pieces. Among my favorites were a sketch containing a quote from The Bloodhound Gang’s “The Bad Touch” and a bright, Keith Haring-like painting on wood. While it may be a well-curated collection, I think that the fact that I had gone to MoMA earlier that day made me not as impressed or enthused by this collection as a whole. It was colorful nonetheless.

The final gallery is probably the most relevant to my generation — an overview and exploration of sex in the digital age. One of the first topics is the so-called “Rule 34,” of which I had never heard, yet was not surprised one bit. The rule? That “if you can imagine it, it exists as internet porn.” I bet many of you have already tested and proven that rule for yourself. A huge backlit mosaic showing off the top Internet searches (related to sex) takes up an entire wall. The rest of the room spotlights some of these sexual interests, providing discussion, findings and hypotheses about people’s interest in each. One particularly interesting panel addressed cellphones’ impact on our sexual culture, and featured Blackberry phones with hand-painted, photograph-like images on their screens.

Once my visit concluded, I emerged once again into the museum’s store, ready to find myself a souvenir or two — how could I leave without buying something!? While the store had quite the assortment of sex-related items, from sleek toys to books, stationery and even candy undergarments. I, of course, walked out with some fancy French condoms and a small tube of silicon lube — weird or not, I actually like trying out different brands in the quest of finding the best ones out there.

Although scheduling prevented me from stopping by, the museum also has a bar on its lower lever, as well as a variety of events several times a month — some of them led by the great Ducky DooLittle, bedroom technique expert.

So next time you’re taking a little trip to the Big Apple and are looking for something slightly overpriced yet still a little saucy and unusual, make sure to put the Museum of Sex on your itinerary. At the very least, you’ll come out of it with some fancy shmancy French condoms.

The post MOSEX appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Oooohhhh — yeeahh!

Well, that was fun. And relieving. Ok, now back to reading neoliberalism’s “brief” history. I’m not sure if I’m liking it more now, but at least I’m not as distracted by my needs anymore — they’ve been temporarily relieved. Alright. So Thatcher gets elected and does what?

But of course, I’m soon again thinking about my next quickie, with myself. Why? Because it’s such a multi-purposed activity. When I’m bored, gloomy, horny, restless, procrastinating and much more, it’s a quick pick-me-up when I need it. Even if I’m not actually in need of feeling better, it’s still a nice little bonus at a random time of day.

But then I start to wonder. Which is better: this or hooking up with a guy?

On one hand, this is safe — I know I’m going to orgasm. And relatively quickly because I know exactly what gets me there — no need to suffer through all the ridiculous tongue acrobatics that a lot of guys think are a good idea. I also don’t have to deal with any type of insecurity about what he thinks of me, my body, or what I’m doing — it’s a safe space to just get sexually satisfied. And it feels so good.

But it’s also a little too predictable. There’s nothing exciting or to discover about this. I know exactly how the whole thing is going to go down and how it’s going to feel. There’s no one else to have fun with too.

So, on the other hand, sex with a guy (or whomever you prefer), does have this exciting mystery. I mean, O.K., I know what naked dudes look like, what penises look like, more or less what always happens and all that. But there’s still an element of the unknown.

But then again, it’s not as convenient. Even if you do have a sig fig or a fuck buddy or whatever, they may be busy when you need a quick fix. Or be too far from you at the point in time. Or not be in the mood. Or able to perform. Or whatever other problem arises. And even if you do get to hook up with them, it’s a whole process. It takes time (yes, I know about quickies, but those are only satisfactory in the getting-to-the-finish-line sense if the skill level is there), you have to give them and their needs attention too and so on. Sometimes, that’s just too much hassle.

So I’m guess that having both would be the ideal solution? Obvious, I know. But, there are plenty of people — girls especially — that don’t play with themselves. They are definitely missing out. And people should make having sex a priority — your right hand is nice and all, but there are limits.

Alright, now let’s finally see what happened once Maggie Thatcher got elected — unless I get distracted, again.

The post Self service appeared first on The Daily Californian.

In the anecdote I featured, I told a guy I was hooking up with that his endowment just wasn’t going to cut it for me. In my newly-single, incredibly sexually frustrated, drunk mind, saying what I thought seemed like a legitimate reaction. But my normal self knows it’s not.

So here is the first thing I want to clarify: I did not, and do not condone making other people feel bad about their bodies. Whatever my other opinions on sex and especially casual sex are, it is an encounter of high vulnerability, and making someone else feel bad about their body is cruel. I’m more than fully aware of that, and I believe I attempted to express that in my original post.

The next thing I would like to clarify is the real point and argument of my post. Contrary to what a lot of people seemed to have focused on, telling a guy that his equipment was too small for me, is not it. Nor was I trying to say that he is universally “inadequate” for any girl. Those happened to be my personal preferences. This also just happened to be the anecdote I used, as well as the incident that got me thinking about superficiality in this context. And that is the real point of my post.

Believe me, as a girl (and therefore lifelong insecurities holder), this was a topic I long thought about. My thoughts and conclusions were a result of much pondering and were not hastily made. And so I still maintain that given the superficial nature of casual sex, we cannot expect anything else from participants. Whether this is right or wrong on a philosophical level is a whole other question, and not one I can or want to answer. This is just what I found to be a reality of our world of hookups.

I would also like to point out that guys absolutely do this too. Luckily for them, they get to size us up from even across the room and mentally discard us for superficial reasons (our boobs aren’t big enough, we don’t have supermodel figures, our face looks funny, etc.) before anything has really happened. I’m not saying that two wrongs make it right, but it is a two-way street, and a reality of gender interactions in this context.

So there you have it. I hope that this has clarified and smoothed out some perceptions of what I tried to express. If not, then at least I tried.

The post Some clearer thoughts on superficiailty appeared first on The Daily Californian.

This really made me think about both the definition of losing one’s virginity, as well as how we count whom we’ve hooked up with (whatever that means) and whom we’ve “had sex with.”

I’m sure we all know those girls who are still virgins yet do a variety of other things with guys they “hook up” with (this can apply to guys too, and I’m absolutely not saying that there is anything wrong with that choice for either). However, this seems to mean that for them, sex is defined as penis-in-vagina (thank you blog author for this term). For whatever reason, they’ve decided to save that for a certain circumstance, so until p-i-v happens, no sex has happened, and no virginity has been lost.

But then I wonder: Does that definition only apply sometimes? As the author explained, she sometimes “has sex” without p-i-v. And what about “lesbian sex”? Are lesbians who’ve never had intercourse with dudes considered virgins? What about gay guys: is the absence of a vagina making it not-sex? So yeah, I would say that defining “having sex” is not that black and white.

Maybe the definition changes as someone’s sex life evolves. Only p-i-v counts in the cherry-poppin’ context, but it changes thereafter. Maybe it changes with the context of the encounter: it only counts in casual sex is “sex” if there is p-i-v, while in a relationship type situation, anything you want to count, counts.

Maybe, it depends on the outcome. If orgasm(s) are involved, then it is “having sex.” If not, “fooling around,” or the ambiguous “hooking up” may be better terms for what happened. Or, maybe it depends on what you were craving for or wanted in order to be “satisfied.” If oral (or whatever) left you content about you encounter, then that was “sex.” If you were craving a nice strong penis inside of you (or a warm vagina to put yours in), then that’s when you’ll call it “sex.”

So I guess, however you want to define it, it really is up to you at each time and place. Whatever makes you feel better (or comfortable, or happy) about the stuff you just did with that person (sig fig or random person you met at that party), go with it. It’s all pretty fun anyway, right?

The post Did I just have sex? appeared first on The Daily Californian.

But what about the world of casual sex? The world where hookups are purely for physical satisfaction. What place does superficiality have there? Is it still wrong to make decisions based on physique and sexual attraction? I would like to argue that it’s not.

Earlier this semester, I went to a party and ended up in the host’s room. Needless to say, we were engaged in the standard make out session that leads to the bed, and eventually sex. So as we made out on his bed, I reached down his pants to play with it, and also to see what he was working with. Unfortunately, I was not impressed with his equipment, and in my drunken stupor communicated that to him. His response? He called me superficial and told me that size is not what’s important.

Now, don’t get me wrong: I know that was pretty rude and mean, and sober me would have never said that to his face. However, let’s look beyond my little display of bad manners and at the issue at hand. Why am I in his bedroom hooking up with him? Because newly single me, who had a disappointing “small” encounter just days prior, is horny and wants to get good sex. I’m not trying to “make an emotional connection here” — that was my rebuttal to his response.

As some of you might know, I can be a fan of “relationship sex” and what the emotional aspect of it brings to the experience. However, this is a different situation. All I want is to have good sex with a sexually attractive guy. And I have certain basic requirements. I know some of you out there are angrily thinking that it’s not about size, but about skills. True — kind of.  If I can barely (or not at all) feel it inside me, how are you going to compensate for that? Great oral? Good for you that you have those skills, but that’s not all I want right now.

Your girlfriend for whom you care deeply and who cares deeply about you will probably not even care and just appreciate what you can do for her and the great intimate and emotional connection you make in bed. But that was not me in that situation. All I wanted was satisfying sex, and I have a pretty good idea of what I like and want.

Again, I know it was rude of me to say it to his face. I’m not disputing that. But these are situations entirely based on physical attraction to begin with. After all, “you can’t fuck a personality,” as a friend of my mine once pointed out.

The post I can be superficial if I want to appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The good news: we went from being ranked 54 in the nation last year to being 12 this year. Go Bears! The bad news: I’m not really sure what this is supposed to mean, or if I even really agree with that.

Just to get you up to speed, each school was evaluated based on thirteen criteria, from student opinion of Health Center, to contraceptive availability and various sexual health education resources, among others. If you read my little review of my experience talking to our Sexual Health Education program folks on Upper Sproul, you should know that I wasn’t particularly impressed. However, I do have to say that we have a sexual health program, sexual health awareness and education events, available STI tests (at a cost), counseling, a DeCal, and some other resources included in the list.

While I applaud our school for having all these resources, I think that my puzzling experience last week left me with a negative impression of our peer counselors. They just weren’t very well versed in even what was going on at the event (which makes me wonder how much depth they could offer me with real sexual health issues), or very at ease discussing sex with a stranger on Upper Sproul. Random ironic observation: our SHEP website’s list of resources actually includes Columbia University’s “Go Ask Alice!“ website (Columbia ranked first for the second year in a row).

There’s something else, however, that I think really bothers me about our so-called good sexual health here: the students’ seemingly large lack of knowledge about STI’s and birth control methods. I continue to find that most people don’t know much or anything about HPV, believe that the “pulling out” method is totally fine and many other things. For such a “sexually healthy” campus, that’s a bit weird.

Much more can be said about our campus sexual health and education resources, but that would take much more time and words than I have here. So, in the meantime, whether you choose Trojan’s new BareSkin condoms (yes, they shamelessly promoted these throughout the packet they sent us) or another brand, use them and go learn about all the stuff you don’t know.

The post Trojan gives us a grade – on sexual health appeared first on The Daily Californian.

As most people passing by probably noticed, there were three dudes dressed in interesting costumes that frankly you couldn’t pay me to wear (but props to them for doing it). Yep, a penis, tube of lube and a condom. Fortunately, they were all really nice and gave me the low-down: all enrolled in the sexuality DeCal, none mind the gig at all and all are pretty much taking the class to get more education on the topic — although that answer seemed a little improvised, if you know what I mean. Nevertheless, they let me take a group picture of them, and deferred me back to the table for further questions.

Now the table was interesting, although a little puzzling. Visitors of the table were drawing genitalia on a poster board as an homage to Superbad. That’s all fine and dandy, although I have no idea why.

Anyway, then I spoke to the guy whom I was told was in charge of the table. He was friendly and nice enough to endure all my questions. However, strangely enough, he seemed quite uninformed — even the “naughty” drawings remained unexplained. He managed to give me a brief description of Mind and Body Awareness Week and list off the each day’s theme, but not that much beyond. I knew just as much about the activities as I did before talking to him. His fellow table manager had slightly more information on what was going on.

On a more positive note, I got some free stuff. Yay. Their people (mascots included) were handing out little bags, each containing two condoms, two single-use packs of lube, instructions (courtesy of Trojan) and a list of “Sexual Health Resources” — basically, descriptions and contact info of SHEP, Tang Center, Berkeley Free Clinic, etc. Helpful, I guess. Random complaint: half of the condoms I got were studded. Not a huge fan.

Overall, I guess I have to give them credit for at least giving some attempt at increasing sexual health awareness on campus. However, this is definitely for beginners. If you know what lube is, how to put on condoms and all that, don’t bother.

But at least I got free condoms, right?

The post Free condoms on Upper Sproul! appeared first on The Daily Californian.

A couple of weeks ago, I joined a friend of mine and her fellow club officers at a local eatery, and one them claimed that sex with someone you have actual feelings for is much better than the feeling-less kind. Though at the time I did more or less agree and made a mental note to eventually discuss this here, I’ve recently thought a lot about this topic.

I think that there is definitely something to be said for the so-called “relationship sex.” Maybe not every “couple” in the world that is having sex experiences it, and maybe some pairs that aren’t in a “relationship” get to. But I do think that it’s more common to the said “couples.” And what do I mean by “relationship sex”? I mean the chemistry that almost makes your head spin when you’re even just making out. The world around you doesn’t matter in that moment, only the other person’s flesh and energy.

I’m still not quite sure what it is that makes it that much better. Maybe it’s because when you’re there, naked, together, doing whatever you’re doing, you know you’re actually special to the person with you? Maybe it’s because you know each other outside and inside the bedroom? Maybe it’s because the post-sex cuddling actually means something? I’m not quite sure. I’m just theorizing here.

I’ve been trying to put my finger on this in the last few weeks, mainly by analyzing a variety of experiences — both mine and my friends’. One of my friends is notorious for not being capable of hooking up with a guy she doesn’t have any sort of (romantic) feelings for, and has somewhat talked herself into believing that she and her current fuck buddy are at least a bit more than that. Maybe it’s that extra spark she’s chasing and which explains her current situation. Even sex with a friend that is more or less identical (in terms of positions and overall technique) to what I used to do with an ex-boyfriend isn’t as dizzying.

With that said, I’m by no means saying that all other kinds of physical encounters are wrong — definitely not changing my mind on that. I just thought that there is something to be said for relationship sex, so I shared a few thoughts on it with you. But who knows, my next one-night stand may be the greatest sex of my life. We’ll see.

The post Thoughts on “relationship sex” appeared first on The Daily Californian.

First, I would like to say that we used the term “slut” in a more positive manner, mostly meaning that a girl is promiscuous (for lack of a better term). We did not use it as a synonym for prostitute. For further “back-up” on this definition, Urban Dictionary does define it as, amongst many other definitions: “A girl who likes sex, so she does it. She probably is not in a relationship, and she equalizes herself to guys by treating sex the same way they do.”

With that out of the way, here are the definitions we worked out:

Slut: A girl who has liberal views on sex and does not need to be in a relationship or monogamous situation to hookup (to whatever degree) with guys. She does what whatever she wants, whenever she wants, with whomever she wants. Most importantly, she does what she does purely for the enjoyment of it — no other goal. She owns her sexuality and sex life and does whatever she wants to do and whatever makes her happy. Her sexual behavior may seem excessive to conservative people, but what the hell! She does what she wants.

Whore: A girl who also has liberal views on sex. However, this girl may or may not really own her sex life (although most likely not really), and uses it as currency. She usually hooks up with a guy in order to get something out of it. For example, to be invited to something exclusive (not that it really works around here), for money/gifts/whatever, to be able to hang around him and his friends (because they are the coolest kids on the block), and so on. She is often also aware that she is being used too, but the prize at the end overshadows that.

So, as you probably figured out (because you’re a Cal smarty pants), the difference between these two seemingly similar words is in the motive. The slut does it purely because she loves sex, and wants to have sex with the hunky dude talking to her, while the whore does it in order to get something from him. Subtle, yet key difference between the two. Oh, and look: Urban Dictionary also agrees with us — “The difference between a slut and a whore is a whore wants something in return, a slut does it just because she likes it.“

The post A definitional distinction appeared first on The Daily Californian.

While folks in relationships, or fuck buddy situations in which the other person is not all that busy, get to enjoy the awesomeness of regular sex whenever they need or want it, us singletons don’t. Thus, the need for a rotation.

Let me explain a little bit more. People have needs. Often. Unfortunately, the person you like to hook up with, casually, isn’t always available. This is Cal — we have shit to do. We have different schedules from a lot of the people we know. Therefore, unfortunately, he or she can’t always meet up with you for a little session of getting down and dirty when you get horny and need it.

That’s frustrating. A lot. It’s a real problem.

This is where the rotation comes in. You can’t count on one person to fulfill all your needs all the time, so you get a little collection of people to do that (I know you relationship/monogamy people out there disagree). If one can’t, another in the rotation should be available. We are assuming that the sex gods are not going to hate you enough to make everyone unavailable at the same time and leave you horny and unsatisfied (yes, I know you can always take care of it yourself, but that’s not always good enough or what you are craving).

A variation on the classic rotation is to have different people for different needs. You can have the dude that has a little crush on you and whom you can talk in to taking you on a date. Then there’s the one who’s your sexual napalm. The one who’s so-so, but a great kisser and fun to make-out with for a quick fix. The one who’s always free (definitely never goes to class or anything else) and you can call at any hour of the day. You get the picture.

However you design your rotation, I encourage you to have one. Sex — and other needs — are important, and it’s so annoying when they are not fulfilled. And, as I said, you cannot depend on one person to fulfill them all. That is why you get backup — the rotation.

The post The rotation appeared first on The Daily Californian.