Orgasm and the brain: body, soul and sensory nerves

Is Prostitution viewed only as Violence Against Women oppressive?

by Liv Jessen

Since the Seventies, parallels have been drawn between prostitution, pornography, rape and domestic violence. A radical feminist theory on prostitution has developed. The theory is that prostitution should be regarded as violence against women. In this chapter, I will try to argue that this is an imperfect or at worst an oppressive theory that can continue to stigmatise prostitutes. Furthermore, I will argue that this theory can go hand in hand with views that regard prostitution as a moral or social problem - theories that the feminists have disagreed with. For the sake of simplicity, I will write about women who sell and men who buy sex.

In the 1970's and 1980's, the position of women in Scandinavian society was the subject of vigorous debate. The most important thing that happened was that women wanted financial independence and they invaded the labour market. As time went on, very many areas of society became arenas for feminist thinking and influence. They were researched, debated and demonstrated for and against. Many battles were won and a number of measures were implemented. The fight for legal abortion was won. There were heated discussions about rape, wife battering, sexual abuse and prostitution. In their wake, we saw the appearance of women's shelters, rape centres, centres for victims of incest and, not least, support centres for prostitutes - of which we are one. Feminist thinking was behind much of the progressive politics of that time.

The prevailing view on prostitution had up until then been that women prostitutes are different from most women and they are whores due to bad morals or to a biological defect. For thousands of years, women have been ashamed of working as prostitutes. The belief that some women have qualities that make them do it is very much alive, and not just among women in prostitution. At any rate, it is her fault and she has to take the 'blame' for prostitution. We have not yet had a serious debate on men, on the customer's responsibility for his role in prostitution. He goes free; the searchlight is on her. The whore and Madonna myth is still very much alive, as is who is 'to blame' in prostitution.

The feminists of the 1980's objected to this view. To us feminist, prostitution was violence against women and there was naturally no reason to divide women into the respectable ones and the temptresses, unless it was to keep women disciplined and split. We believed that women were forced into prostitution for various reasons, such as material and spiritual want. Prostitution was a class question then as it is now. It is women of the working class who are available today, too.

What does or did this radical feminist view consist of? I am sure that plenty of you are familiar with it. In fact, even today it affects much of Scandinavian society.

Basically, a feminist believes that the balance of power between men and women determines their different positions in society. Women were and still are inferior to men in the financial, social, political and cultural area. Although much has changed since the 1980's, research and statistics show that there is still a long way to go. This structural imbalance affects both our thinking and society's many institutions. What happened? Other areas, which had previously been regarded as private, were now politicised: battering, rape, sexual abuse, etc. The violence a women suffered in her home was no longer a private matter. It was an expression of men's power over women and thus a social issue. Previously, it was the woman's fault for putting herself in a position where she was raped and abused. Now this violence was interpreted within the context of the power balance between the sexes, the need of the male sex to discipline the female sex. Viewed this way, women were the victims and men the abusers. So far so good. But we also interpreted prostitution within this framework. A woman prostitute was a victim of the (male) customer's abusive power over her.

The philosophy that prostitution is violence against women presumes that men have power, are the subject, can act and make choices. Women prostitutes are then victims, objects, and more or less 'forced' into prostitution for a variety of reasons, such as sexual abuse, poverty, drug dependence and an unhappy childhood and youth. Moreover we claimed that prostitution - selling sexual services - was synonymous with selling part of yourself and therefore done at great emotional cost. Our sexuality was identical or closely associated with our identity or our very SELVES.

It was also agreed that the people who organize this business, the ringleaders and pimps, should be persecuted. Further tightening up of the anti-prostitution regulations was not to affect the weakest party, i.e. the sellers. Disagreement arose when there was talk of criminalizing the customer only and that disagreement remains to this day.

The years pass by and thanks to my day-to-day work at the ProCentre I learn more, understand more, read more and, not least, meet women in prostitution who do not fit into the picture we all had of the woman prostitute - the picture of wretchedness and misery. I feel the need to expand the picture. It is not just the drug-addicted streetwalker I meet, with a difficult past, with few options, who thinks prostitution is hell on earth. She has different faces. She no longer talks with only one tongue.

I meet women who tell me both that they have 'chosen' prostitution and that they do not lack anything because of it. I do not believe them. I think that they are saying this because they do not know what is good for them: WE KNOW what traumas are involved.

How often can we say or think this without wondering what view of humankind is hidden here. Norwegian philosopher Hans Skjervheim has wisely said that if we objectify another person, it is not easy to take her and what she is saying seriously. He says: "By objectifying the other person, you attack that other person's freedom. You turn the other person into a fact, an object in your world. In that way you can gain control of the other person. The person who objectifies the other in the most sophisticated way is the master". This gives me a nasty taste in my mouth. I do not want to objectify anyone or take control of anyone. Who am I to say to these women that I know better than they do, what their life is like, what they feel and think?

As time goes on, we meet more and more people who describe their life in prostitution in a rather different way from the picture drawn by radical feminist research. A picture I myself had obstinately stuck to throughout my initial years at the. The picture becomes more varied and therefore more complicated. It is no longer so black and white. The horizons become wider. Can different realities be true at one and the same time? I think, at any rate, that the feminist perspective of the 1980's alone does not provide a satisfactory answer to all the complex questions we come up against, or explain the paradoxes we encounter, nor is it a sufficient basis on which to formulate a wise policy for the future. The starting point was too narrow. For where is the social significance of male prostitution or women buyers, if prostitution is only an expression of men's sexual dominance over women? There are many questions which obscure the picture. The mistake we had made was to believe that our view embraced the whole world of prostitution. Until then, the prostitution we had seen was among the defeated women on the street. Where need was great - and it was easy, as a social worker, to regard her as a victim of men's oppression. This was particularly easy when it fitted in with our theoretical superstructure. Radical feminist research had also chosen to research the "obvious victims" in street prostitution.

At any rate, I am more afraid today of the people who have found the whole truth about prostitution than I am of those who have the courage to doubt.

A person who has dared to ask questions is a Finnish researcher, Margaretha J. Srvinen. She challenges us by asking some interesting questions which I would like to present here. She claims that there are several possible feministic views of prostitution. Some complement each other, while others are in direct conflict. The sex trade is not a phenomenon outside of society; on the contrary, it is constructed by society. It reflects the gender and power structure we have and is thus not abnormal. Thus, it is important not to attach importance to what distinguishes prostitutes from other women, but to focus on the fact that women in general have a great deal in common, such as our work on the reproduction front, the fact that we are largely financially inferior to and dependent on men, the female role in the sex game, commercialisation of the female body, the disciplining of women's sexuality, and so on. She calls her view a socio-constructionist view and she says it is not very constructive to explain a prostitute's participation in prostitution by her background, upbringing or similar, or by the detrimental effects prostitution is claimed to have. She uses some controversial questions to support her view. For example:

-- Can prostitution be seen as an option, or is it always a situation where there is no choice?
-- Are women prostitutes deviants or normal people?
Is the purchase itself an expression of power or of powerlessness? --Should prostitution be criminalized or not?
-- I would like to consider some of these questions.
-- Does prostitution always have to be linked with a no-choice situation?

We agreed that women are generally in an inferior social position. Some women also find themselves in a no-choice situation where they feel that prostitution is the only solution. The more traumatic a woman's background is, the easier it is for us to understand her. It is easy to confuse the structural view of women as victims and objects of men's abusive power with the picture of individual wretchedness in some street prostitutes. We naturally have no difficulty in understanding that her wretched life quality 'forces' her to prostitute herself.

Like other radical feminists, Higard and Finstad, two Norwegian scientists, are unable to accept voluntary prostitution because they do not believe that anyone could ever choose to take part in such activity: "no-one wants to rent out her vagina as a garbage can for hordes of anonymous men's ejaculations". Nevertheless, to apply the social victim-object view to individuals in prostitution can at best arouse our sympathy, but at worst can result in her no longer seeing herself as a person, a subject with a choice. If there is anything women in prostitution need to do, then it is to mobilize all their willpower and strength to make a choice - and perhaps chose something other than prostitution. But to do that she must be ascribed humanness, subjectivity and identity. And then we also run the risk that she will not make the choice we want her to; she may choose prostitution. As the wise Hans Skjervheim has said: "The first thing you have to choose, is to make the choice yourself".

The sex trade today covers many different degrees of volition and exploitation. That is why it is fruitless to take a general victim view of prostitution. Free will and force vary in different cultures in the past and in the present, within any one country and perhaps also in any one individual.

What about prostitutes as deviants or normal people?

We have mentioned above that prostitution has traditionally been regarded as "socially deviant", and that this was something the feminists objected to. They would not agree that her participation in prostitution could be explained by individual characteristics and pathologization. But what happens if we explain her participation solely by background factors such as a difficult childhood, drug abuse in the home, psychological problems, sexual abuse, etc. Or if we analyse the social and psychological deviations and harmful effects caused by prostitution, such as split personality, loss of self-respect, sexual problems, social isolation etc.? What then? We are getting dangerously close to defining her as a social deviant. She is certainly not like us. She is still the Other Woman, with whom we do not have to identify. We are careful not show our contempt. Instead she becomes the object of our pity.

If she is in a situation where she has no choice, is he always in a position of power?

In 1979, Taksdal and Prieur, also Norwegian scientists, launched a book. The title of this book roughly translated in English is 'Putting a Price on Women - Men Who Buy Sex'. This book has unfortunately not actually been translated. At last, the focus shifts for a brief moment. Since then both the Swedes and the Danes have written books and reports on the purchaser. Research shows that the customer is no different from ordinary men as regards age, marital status or occupation, although there is an overrepresentation among men who travel a great deal. The customers' reasons for purchasing vary. However, the feminist interpretation of men as the subject, active and power-wielding does not fit in very well with the motives given by the interviewees. Their statements can be interpreted as powerlessness as easily as anything else. In some ways, the women even believe that they are the ones with power in prostitution, not the customers. Since power and the exercise of power vary so much between the different forms of prostitution and in different cultures, it is not easy to paint an unambiguous picture. I think that many of us who busy ourselves with these questions agree that far more social effort must be directed at the customers in the years ahead, both in the form of more research into the market and into the buyers' motives for buying, and we should perhaps implement some social measures for certain groups of customers.

Then there is the criminalization aspect.

For many years it was (and still is) generally agreed that we did not want to criminalize women in prostitution. The situation for street prostitutes was already wretched; no-one wanted to make it any worse. Some political voices advocated this criminalization, but it does not look as if the suggestion has much support among the people of Scandinavia. However, there are many people who, out of sympathy for women in street prostitution and on a feministic basis, advocate criminalizing the customers. Sweden passed a law in 1999 prohibiting the sale of sexual services. One good thing about the Swedish law is that, unlike earlier legislation, it has brought the customer's role into the debate on prostitution.

However, my main argument against criminalization of the customer is that it would most likely send the activity under ground and away from public supervision and control. Furthermore, any kind of criminalization will hurt the weakest party, the women. In 1985, changes were made in the penal code in Canada, prohibiting the sale of sexual services in public places. They tried to adapt the law in a gender-equal way, but more sellers than buyers were caught. Many of the street prostitutes I have spoken to in Oslo do not see criminalization of the customers as supportive of them. They say that they do not make any distinction between criminalising prostitution as such and criminalizing the purchase alone. They already feel that they are doing something illegal, so if the purchase alone is criminalised in Norway too, they know that in practice it will be bad for them.

Off-street prostitution will always be very difficult to prosecute. For that reason, the Swedish police have concentrated their efforts on street prostitution. The women in street prostitution are already very vulnerable to abuse; the situation will become worse. Confidence in social workers and in the police will dwindle, and the market will be wide open for procurers and other profiteers. The best means of preventing the situation from becoming worse is openness and dialogue.

We must be capable of finding other ways of doing something about prostitution. Believing that criminalization will 'resolve' this difficult dilemma for us is not the way to go. A society with our humanistic traditions must make an effort to find better solutions. I do not know of any restrictive society where legislation has abolished prostitution - it has only made the situation more difficult for those who sell sex. Since 1999 when they introduced the new law in Sweden, 160 cases were reported. Out of these, 67 cases were withdrawn. Of the rest, 43 were charged for the crime. 25 persons were fined, 11 submitted fine without trial and 7 not guilty. 50 cases are still under investigation. These figures are from February 2001. There, they have focused on street prostitution and 'got rid of' half of the street prostitutes. What has happened to them, no-one knows. Very little is known about off-street prostitution.

At all events, there is a scarlet thread running from the view that prostitutes are victims and social losers through the idea that purchasing sex is 'violence against women' to the suggestion that the activity of customers should be criminalized. Seen from this point of view, criminalization will recognize that prostitutes have no choice and apportion the blame where it belongs, namely with the customer.

How can we sum this all up? J. Srvinen says: "Prostitution is not a marginal phenomenon on the edge of society, inhabited by deviant individuals. It does not represent a break with the male society's central values and norms. It is a social construction which corresponds with the male and female roles in society. Therefore, there is no obvious and universally applicable line between prostitute-client relationships and other heterosexual relationships." Whether or not J. Srvinen is right is open to discussion. We, for our part, can sum up as follows:

Customer research has shown that the customer alone cannot be seen as and interpreted as an abuser of power. But there are areas of prostitution which attract criminals and abusers, and this will be the case if we marginalize these areas even more and place them outside public supervision.

We have also wondered whether tightening up the legislation will have the desired effect, or whether other measures might prove to be better. No country I know of has managed to abolish prostitution with the help of a few legal provisions. I have never seen such widespread sales of sex as there are in Thailand where prostitution is prohibited.

We know today that women 'choose' prostitution for a variety of reasons. Some from a more enforced and inferior position than others.

Some are extremely unhappy with what they are doing, become deeply troubled, and need years of good support to repair the damage. Some seem to sail through it without a problem. But they all have one thing in common. They all know that society around them condemns them for what they do. They are a pariah race, branded, outcasts and feared. Combating this should be a major challenge for all feminists. Instead, the radical feminists continue to talk about her as a victim. If she defends her participation in prostitution, they say that she is not credible; they talk about a false consciousness syndrome. The only women who are believed and who know what is best for them are the "repentant sinners", who have been called Survivors. Women in prostitution naturally have different views on the subject of prostitution, but to say that only the ones who agree with us are right, while the prostitutes who think differently are not ascribed human qualities like the right to make their own choices or to be believed, is oppressive and a fundamentalist attitude.

Our society's humanistic traditions should be the basis for all our work on prostitution. We need to demonstrate our solidarity with women and men who sell sex. Every prostitute suffers from the way society brands her. Furthermore, we must initiate measures which can help to strengthen prostitutes' human and civil rights. They must have the same rights as other citizens and we must abolish any laws which prevent this. Whatever we do, we must ask ourselves whether the measures intensify the stigmatisation or make the situation worse for those who sell sex. We must keep their health and well-being in mind. We need initiative and enterprise to fight the aspects of prostitution which are oppressive and degrading.

We must formulate a social welfare policy that gives a helping hand to prostitutes who want to get out of it. That applies to both buyers and sellers. While prostitution itself should not be a crime, coercion, violence and deception should still be.

We do not think we can regulate ourselves out of prostitution by passing new, more stringent laws. The burdens imposed by restrictive changes in legislation will always be borne by the people who sell sex.

Women's inferior position to men in society applies regardless of prostitution. We also know that being oppressed is not the same as being weak and passive. We always have to distinguish between understanding prostitution at a structural level and understanding it at an individual level. But prostitutes, like all other people, must be given the freedom to choose. That is what makes you human. It also means that you are allowed to take the responsibility for your actions.

Prostitutes will no longer be looked upon as victims to pity or rescue - but as heroes in their own life.

Liv Jessen received the first ever Human Rights Award from Amnesty International for Prostitutes' Rights work.

Inhibited Lovemaking
My wife and I have been married three months, and she hasn't yet had an orgasm. She has certain fears of sex, and a lot of inhibitions. There are distinct boundaries that never get crossed. I don't blame her, but she blames herself. What can we do to help things get better?

Louis: Early adjustment problems are not at all unusual. Most couples have questions related to their physical intimacy. Many of the Christian books on sexuality, such as The Gift of Sex (Word) and Intended for Pleasure(Revell), can be helpful in overcoming inhibitions.

Since sexual development is such a private experience, there can be many reasons for the difficulty. It might be helpful to see a qualified counselor to help your wife work through feelings that block her orgasmic response. These can be related to early restrictive teaching that presented sex as dirty. Many women were never given the message that marital sex is a God-given gift meant for our pleasure.

Another common cause is a woman's need for her own emotional control and her related feelings of anxiety as erotic stimulation increases. The intensity of pre-orgasmic excitation can seem threatening for a woman who has learned to stay in control of her feelings. Also, guilt related to sexual fantasies or premarital experiences can create barriers to full sexual enjoyment. Of course, early sexual abuse can stimulate fearful associations. But don't let an overzealous counselor convince your wife that her problems with sex mean she was abused as a child. Such ideas may be planted by a well-intentioned therapist but often have no basis in reality.

Melissa: Sometimes worrying about having an orgasm can inhibit a woman's response. If your wife is preoccupied with orgasm, she may become too much of a "spectator." Sometimes an orgasm comes more easily when a woman stops striving for one.

If your wife blames herself, she may be suffering from false guilt. The Bible has clear instructions about how to deal with real guilt: Repent and accept God's forgiveness. But false guilt is based on notions that are not true, yet seem so real that our "hearts" worry over them. Once your wife has dealt with any real guilt, she can trust God to free her from listening to the lies (see 1 John 3:18-20). Treat your wife tenderly and accept her totally—inhibitions and all. You might also check out your expectations. Many men expect their wives to resemble the women they see in the media. Big mistake.

Louis and Melissa: It's also important to look at your sensitivity as a sexual partner.

High-Tech Adultery
Our marriage reached the crisis point when my wife started having cybersex relationships on the Internet, and even some phone sex, with several men. She says she wouldn't have an actual affair, but she refuses to stop these improper activities, and she refuses to go to counseling. She says she's staying in our marriage for the kids. What do you suggest I do?

Louis: Your wife's behavior indicates she has a serious sexual addiction. Since she is unwilling to seek professional help, you have two options. One is to express your love for her and declare your commitment to win her back, but do nothing about her disturbing sexual behavior. This approach could work if she becomes convicted by God, won back by your love, and turns her life around. But it could be a very long wait—and she may never change.

The second option is also risky, because it will lead to difficult conflict and could fracture your relationship further. That option is to reaffirm your love and commitment to your wife but employ a "tough love" approach. Disconnect the modem, get rid of the computer, whatever it takes. Say, "I love you and I can't watch you destroy yourself and our marriage."

As with other addictions, sexually compulsive patterns tend to develop tolerance so that more and more stimulus is needed to achieve the desired level of excitement. Chances are, others who are playing around in cybersex have similar addictions and would be equally susceptible to having multiple sex partners. As you make a decision about how to move ahead, you might want to read Harry Schaumburg's False Intimacy (NavPress). It's a good resource for sexual addiction problems.

Your wife's problem won't be resolved by some quick and easy solution. There are some deep and probably long-term conflicts that will require professional help once she admits her need to change. Ultimately, her healing will involve accepting God's grace and recognizing the fulfilling nature of mature marital sex. Your forgiveness will help promote her recovery.

Melissa: I am the computer person in our house, and I know the drawing power of the Internet. If I could talk with your wife, I'd tell her: "You're fooling yourself when you say you are staying in your marriage for your kids. What's best for them is a strong, intimate relationship between their mom and dad. If you are really serious about doing what's best for them, you'll get into some good counseling and get your act straightened out.

"Your kids know what is going on—more than you think. What lessons about intimacy and commitment are you modeling when you relate to a computer fantasy rather than investing in a human relationship? You were designed to be a good wife and mom; these goals are not beyond you. Both require hard work and commitment. But the rewards far outweigh any 'fun' you might miss on the Internet."

Use It or Lose It?
Is sex a "use it or lose it" proposition? If we don't have frequent sex will our sex drive be diminished? Also, is it true that sexual activity helps prevent prostate problems later in life?

Louis and Melissa: The basic drive for sex isn't easily daunted. In fact, after most short-term periods of abstinence, the sex drive is increased and sexual release is intensified. If the reason for decreased frequency is rooted in relational problems, however, there may be a diminished drive. But that's not a matter of physiology. The causes of the slowdown must be dealt with; then let nature take its course.

Louis: Now to your second question. Urological studies support the notion that regular ejaculation decreases the incidence of prostatic disease. It seems a "feast or famine" rhythm contributes to problems in later life. But don't let the medical concern become an excuse for coercive sex. Saying, "I've gotta have sex or I'll get cancer!" is out. "Not tonight, Honey" should be respected and later coupled with some communication about acceptable frequency.

Melissa: I hope the wives among our readers don't dismiss this letter too lightly. Frequent sex is a gift of love from you to your husband—and, evidently, good preventive medicine as well!

Real Sex columnists Melissa and Louis McBurney, M.D., are marriage therapists and co-founders of Marble Retreat in Marble, Colorado, where they counsel clergy couples. The McBurneys have been married 35 years.

Sex Toys, Solo Acts and the Bare Facts -by Louis and Melissa McBurney

A friend told me that using sex "toys"—things like leather undergarments and battery-operated devices—has turned his sex life around. I admit it sounds interesting, but I wonder if he is seeking more out of sex than God intends for us to experience. And don't these sex toys create a sense of dissatisfaction with basic, unaided intercourse?

Louis and Melissa: Our own taste in romantic props runs more along the lines of lace and candle-power than leather and battery-operated gadgets. Within reason, outside "props" can make a positive contribution. But we have real concerns about relying on certain tools and sexual toys to accomplish dynamite sex.

One problem is that these devices have to be upgraded over time to provide the same level of excitement. In itself, this isn't necessarily evil or destructive. But for many couples it's a too-short step toward sado-masochistic practices. For the delicious pleasures of sexuality to be tainted by images of bondage or pain is far from what God designed sex to be.

Sexual pleasure should draw a husband and wife together in a powerful bond that helps them become "one flesh." We don't think there is any way to get "more out of sex than God intends" in the positive realm. The intense, joyous release of orgasm, free from fear and fantasy, is a divine possibility to be sought.

If the magic has gone out of your sexual romance, the first place to look is at your relationship as a whole. Are there ways to improve your feelings of passion, such as spending a quiet evening together away from the kids? You may be losing interest in passionate sex because you're harboring unresolved anger or heavy disappointments. Clearing those up can release tremendous energy for sexual enjoyment.

Next, evaluate your sexual interaction. Talk through the things you do before and during sex. Maybe what worked years ago no longer seems all that exciting. Have you stopped talking about what brings about erotic feelings? If you come to bed exhausted and settle for a "quickie" night after night, it may be time to invest new energy into the system. Whistles and bells and leather undies aren't going to overcome physical exhaustion.

Whatever you do to enhance your sexual enjoyment, be sure it draws you more deeply into passionate oneness with your mate and doesn't create barriers in your relationship with God. If something as innocent as lace and candlelight builds images of unhealthy, adulterous liaisons, it's as dangerous as chains and whips. On the other hand, a little leather and some new lighting may rekindle passionate love.

One final caution: Keep in mind who reaps the profits from the sale of sexual "toys." If purchasing these devices feeds the pornography industry, we recommend a boycott!

My husband of seven years has recently stopped approaching me sexually. When I ask him about it, he says we're just "out of sync." But I don't buy it. When changing the sheets, I've seen evidence that he masturbates while I'm sleeping right next to him. What gives? I don't even know what to think or how to approach him anymore.

Louis: Sex is often a barometer of the overall marital climate. Think about what has been happening in your lives to find signs of any of these common causes of a man's loss of sexual interest: fear of failure, fear of rejection or unresolved anger.

Fear of failure powerfully affects a man's sexual performance. Men derive much of their sense of well-being and identity from being "adequate." If this feeling of being capable is threatened, it can lead to premature ejaculation, erectile failure or diminished sex drive. Most men have a hard time admitting these fears. In fact, your husband may prefer masturbation because it's safer and physiologically easier than worrying about satisfying your sexual needs. He may also have involuntary ejaculations while he sleeps. A lack of interest may also may be caused by fatigue, loss of confidence on the job, or from medication, drugs or alcohol abuse. Once a man has experienced some failure sexually he may "suddenly" lose interest in order to avoid failing again.

The second great fear is rejection. It's fairly common for a man to become so fearful of being turned down that he decides it's just not worth the pain to risk initiating sex. His wife may be vaguely aware of occasionally saying "Not tonight, Honey," while her husband may remember 27 out of his last 30 invitations being unsuccessful. (But who's counting?)

The third possible cause, unresolved anger, is a powerful antilibidinous force. Who wants to cuddle up to someone who seems like the enemy? A man may feel turned off by his wife especially when his anger is related to feelings of being controlled or belittled.

Melissa: When one of these factors is dampening a husband's enthusiasm, it's normal for him to rationalize the change as you two being "out of sync." Talk with your husband about what may really be happening—not in an accusing way, but with compassion. And be sure to express your desire to be connected with him sexually.

If you haven't already tried breaking the distance between you by initiating sex yourself, go for it! Be your most seductive and really vamp him! Or try following the advice given in Neil Clark Warren's book The Triumphant Marriage (Focus on the Family). Chapter five offers helpful tips for reviving your sexual chemistry.

Professional help may also be necessary. If your husband isn't interested in seeing a counselor with you, go ahead and get help yourself. Do what you can to find ways to restore the old passion.

Recently, my nine-year-old daughter accidently saw my genitalia, and I didn't know what to do. In general, at what age should parents stop allowing their kids to see them naked?

Louis: If you're talking about the parent's age, I'd say about 39, when the bulges and sags become really embarrassing! But seriously, it's difficult to pinpoint an exact age at which children should stop seeing their parents without their clothes on.

Melissa: Many people are trying to move away from the idea of modesty, believing it to be based on unhealthy feelings of shame. But modesty doesn't have much to do with the problem of shame. According to the Scriptures, shame entered the picture at the fall—when Adam and Eve disobeyed God and sin entered the world. Most passages that refer to nakedness and covering up the body have more to do with vulnerability and loss of dignity. The Bible doesn't teach that the body is something evil or shameful that needs to be hidden.

Children should be taught that their bodies are made by God and that they are beautiful and precious. Modesty should grow out of a sense of gratitude for what God has given us and a sense of responsibility about how God wants us to use our bodies. The Bible teaches modesty for a very good reason: Chastity is made more difficult without modesty. Your children will need a healthy respect for and understanding of modesty as they mature.

Louis: But to get back to your question, nudity within a family seems to be very much a culturally determined standard. Japanese families traditionally continue communal nude bathing in hot tubs throughout life, and so do many Europeans. Psychiatrically speaking, the attitudes about nudity and the associated sexual behaviors seem to determine the effect of nudity on a child's development.

Attitudes about nakedness and sexuality begin to develop quite early. A baby senses nonverbal signals that demonstrate family members' feelings about sexuality. Shame, embarrassment, discomfort or delight are conveyed when diapers are changed or baths are given. On his or her own, a small child will discover the sensations associated with touching the genital area. Those pleasurable feelings may become confused if anxious adults bring shame into the picture.

Thus, nakedness within the family is interpreted through the lens of countless other experiences. When the experiences associated with nakedness are positive and healthy, that's fine. But when associated behaviors are inappropriately sexual or negative, real damage is done. Exposure to bare bodies is one thing, but any kind of erotic play is completely taboo! At early adolescence, children may become more uncomfortable about nudity because of the awakening of sexual arousal, especially if the family has been uncomfortable with sexuality or has never talked about healthy sex.

However, in a relaxed, intimate family circle, exposure to noneroticized nudity should cause no damage. If your nine-year-old of the opposite sex accidently sees your genitalia, don't make a big deal of it. Just say, "Sorry—I didn't know you were here." Then, if it seems appropriate, you might even talk with her about the differences between male and female anatomy. The talk could blossom into a natural discussion about reproductive physiology and the moral and relational aspects of sexuality. Nine might be a little late in these days of pervasive sexual awareness, but if you're comfortable with the subject you may learn a lot from the discussion!

Real Sex columnists Melissa and Louis McBurney, M.D., are marriage therapists and co-founders of Marble Retreat in Marble, Colorado, where they counsel clergy couples. The McBurneys have been married 35 years.

The McBurneys aren't able to respond personally to readers' letters. But if you have a Real Sex question you'd like them to address in this column, send your question to:

Real Sex
Marriage Partnership
465 Gundersen Drive
Carol Stream, IL 60188

Or you can e-mail your questions to: mp@marriagepartnership.com

Lies We're Told About Sex

By Cory Silverberg, About.com

The messages we receive about sex from our parents, the media, and our educational, social, and religious institutions tend to be contradictory, and often downright false. One way to combat the lies we're told about sex is to start cataloguing them. Below is a very incomplete list of some of the biggest lies we're told about sex.

Sex is genetic: It's the puppet-master and we're lucky to be getting our strings pulled now and then.

Sex is natural and simple: You should just know how to do it.

Sex is gender: Men are from sex-crazed Mars; women are from soft and romantic Venus.

• Women just want to cuddle, men want to have raunchy sex.
• Women are sexual communicators, men can't talk about their sexual feelings.
• "Real sex" takes place between a man and a woman.
• Men and women can't ever be friends, sex always gets in the way.
• Men want sex all the time, and women don't.
• Men are more visual than women when it comes to sexual arousal.

Sex is spontaneous: Don't talk about it, just do it.

Bigger is better, more is better…better is better.

Sex is special: It's a rare transformative moment that only comes once in a while.

We can make it on our own: Sexual agency is the same as sexual independence.

There's a right way and a wrong way to have sex.

Great sex is all about…

Q. My husband wants me to do things when we're making love that I don't want to do. When I tell him it makes me uncomfortable, he tells me I'm being a prude. What should I do?

A. It's difficult to answer your question, since we're unsure what practice you and your husband are disagreeing about. Your husband could be asking for things that are obviously unbiblical, such as bringing another person into the bedroom, either through pornography or an actual person. Or he may be asking for a change in position or location.

If the situation isn't unbiblical but simply something you're uncomfortable with, ask yourself why you don't want to try what your husband is suggesting. Some sexual behaviors may always be crude, gross, or offensive to you, and he'll need to accept that graciously. But you might be able to explore and experiment playfully with other behaviors.

The apostle Paul wrote, "The marriage bed must be a place of mutuality—the husband seeking to satisfy his wife, the wife seeking to satisfy her husband. Marriage is not a place to 'stand up for your rights.' Marriage is a decision to serve the other, whether in bed or out" (1 Corinthians 7:3-4, The Message).

As you apply this Scripture, the tension becomes: how do you serve your husband (and he, you) in bed? How do you listen to your spouse's desires and how do you listen to yourself—your emotions, values, and understanding of God's intention for your sexuality?

God's intention in giving you and your husband

the gift of sharing your sexuality with each other is to bring oneness, joy, love, nurture, and fun to your relationship.

Talk about this impasse when you're not going to make love, are making love, or have just made love. Share your feelings about doing with him the things he's suggested. Is that how he wants you to feel during sex? Be specific about what makes you uncomfortable.

Make sure you also explore why he wants to try these behaviors. He may have unhealthy motivations (seeking a bigger buzz or playing out something he saw in pornography) that should not be a part of your sex life. But he may have healthy motivations (playfulness, exploration, creativity) that can be met through behaviors you're more comfortable with.

Too dry for sex
Q. I'm always so dry during sex—even when I feel aroused. Why is that and is there anything I can do about it?

A. Vaginal dryness is a common problem. It occurs in women of all ages, although it's most common during perimenopause and after menopause.

There are many reasons for a lack of lubrication during sex, including smoking, diabetes, some autoimmune diseases, breast-feeding, and side effects from allergy meds, cold medications, and antidepressants. But the main cause is reduced estrogen levels. When estrogen levels decrease, the vaginal lining becomes thinner, less elastic, and more fragile.

The first step is to talk with your physician. Is she aware of anything in your medical history that might contribute to your vaginal dryness? She can help you sort through these causes and find a treatment.

Next, try using an artificial lubricant, which may take some experimentation. Start with your doctor's recommendation, as there are some newer artificial lubricants that work much better than what you'd find over the counter. Some lubricants contain ingredients that are toxic to sperm (important to know if you're trying to get pregnant); some contain ingredients that may be irritating to your vaginal tissues. Vitamin E may be a good alternative, but some women develop an allergy to topical vitamin E.

One lubricant that's been used since ancient Rome is olive oil. It's pure and has no added ingredients or preservatives—but may stain clothing and sheets.

Finally, make sure you're allowing your body the time and necessary

stimulation to be fully aroused. Arousal can take ten times longer in a woman than in a man. And for women it involves both a physical component (blood flow, tissue swelling, muscle tension, lubrication) and a mental/emotional component (the sense that you're aroused). Just "feeling aroused" may not mean your body is.

When a couple is trying to "fit sex in" to their busy lives and aren't making the time to enjoy the ride, it may be impossible for the body and mind to "mesh" so that sex is comfortable and enjoyable. Making more time to share your bodies is the best approach to take.

Michael Sytsma, Ph.D., is a minister and founder of Building Intimate Marriages (www.intimatemarriage.org). Debra Taylor, MFT, is co-author of Secrets of Eve (Thomas Nelson). Both are certified Christian sex therapists and co-founders of Sexual Wholeness, Inc. (www.sexualwholeness.com).