NCSF on Twitter   Subscribe to the NCSF RSS Feed   NCSF Blog

NCSF Blog

Stay in Touch. Stay in the Know.

"How normal are you in bed"

on Friday, 11 March 2016. Hits 494

A new survey finds most of us get off to things psychiatrists may not approve of.

Mens Fitness

BY RACHAEL SCHULTZ

Worried that your deepest darkest fantasies aren't exactly "normal?" According to traditional psychology, they might be more average than you thought. What's more: your partner is probably right there with you: A new study in The Journal of Sex Research found that what psychiatrists classify as abnormal sexual preferences are actually very common.

 

Researchers from the University of Montreal surveyed a diverse group of over 1,000 people in Quebec on what sexual acts they do and don't enjoy. The catch? Their options were the intimacy interests deemed "paraphilic," or atypical by the bible of mental disorders, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).

 

Some of the interests that qualified: exhibitionism (enjoying watching others have sex), voyeurism (enjoying others watching you), fetishism (sexual arousal from inanimate objects or body parts), frotteurism (dry humping), sexual masochism (pleasure from receiving pain or ridicule), sexual sadism (pleasure from giving pain or ridicule), and transvestism (excitement from wearing clothes of the opposite sex).

 

Worried that your deepest darkest fantasies aren't exactly "normal?" According to traditional psychology, they might be more average than you thought. What's more: your partner is probably right there with you: A new study in The Journal of Sex Research found that what psychiatrists classify as abnormal sexual preferences are actually very common.

 

Researchers from the University of Montreal surveyed a diverse group of over 1,000 people in Quebec on what sexual acts they do and don't enjoy. The catch? Their options were the intimacy interests deemed "paraphilic," or atypical by the bible of mental disorders, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).

 

Some of the interests that qualified: exhibitionism (enjoying watching others have sex), voyeurism (enjoying others watching you), fetishism (sexual arousal from inanimate objects or body parts), frotteurism (dry humping), sexual masochism (pleasure from receiving pain or ridicule), sexual sadism (pleasure from giving pain or ridicule), and transvestism (excitement from wearing clothes of the opposite sex). ...

Participants needed for Qualitative Study

on Friday, 11 March 2016. Hits 371

Vanilla and Kink: Married Couples in Which One Partner Identifies as a Part of the BDSM Culture and the Other Partner Does Not.

Looking for a legally married couple:

· At least 18 years of age

· Married for at least 1 year (including open-marriage and other variations)

· Male and female partnered marriage

· Speak and write English language fluently

· One partner self-identifying as a part of the BDSM culture/community for at least 1 year and the other partner self-identifying as not specifically BDSM (including vanilla, kinky but not identifying as BDSM, etc. )

· Not currently pregnant or experiencing psychosis or suicidal ideation

Due to the limited time and resources, this particular study focuses the above specific population. Future research will include a variety of types of committed relationships, sexual orientations, etc.

For questions or interest in participation, contact:

Catherine Meyer, MA, LMFT #88224

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Supervised by Hao-Min Chen, Ph.D.

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Goal of this study is to understand how married couples communicate and negotiate the rules, roles, and expectations about their sexual relationship when one partner identifies with the BDSM culture and the other does not.

 

All identifying information will be kept confidential.

This research is endorsed by CARAS.

NCSF Announcement on the George Mason University case

on Thursday, 10 March 2016. Hits 2203

NCSF counsel has carefully analyzed the opinion of U.S. District Court Judge T. S. Ellis III in John Doe v. George Mason University. Contrary to what is being said by some people on the internet, the issues actually decided by the Judge had nothing to do with the constitutionality or legality of BDSM. That subject appears only in a throw-away section of the opinion in which the Judge, having already decided the case in favor of the BDSM practitioner who had been wrongfully expelled from the university, decided to give vent to his displeasure with BDSM and with Lawrence v. Texas, and to state his own totally wrong interpretation of Lawrence.

At the outset of the opinion, the Judge announced that he was going to decide two issues. First, did the University use the constitutionally-required procedures in expelling Mr. Doe? He ruled that the University did not. Second, was Mr. Doe’s right of free speech violated by taking action against him for telling his girlfriend privately that he might commit suicide? The Judge ruled that Mr. Doe’s free speech rights were violated. On these grounds, and only on these grounds, the Judge ordered Mr. Doe to be at least temporarily reinstated at George Mason

After all of this, the Judge noted that Mr. Doe had argued earlier in the case – but not for purposes of this decision – that he had a constitutional right to practice BDSM. Then, without any pretense of issuing any order on this issue, the Judge gave vent to his own views on BDSM and Lawrence v. Texas.

There is now no procedure by which the subject of BDSM will be addressed in any further court proceedings. The student, Mr. Doe, cannot appeal this decision because he won. The University might appeal, but only on the procedural unfairness and free speech issues.

NCSF regrets that Judge Ellis felt it necessary to articulate his dead-wrong view of Lawrence. This is but one more example of a judge giving expression to his own moralistic and uninformed displeasure concerning BDSM. But it is entirely what lawyers call dictum. It creates no precedent and does not even have any effect on this case.

For more information, contact NCSF at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

"Best and Most Beautiful Things Premieres at SXSW"

on Wednesday, 09 March 2016. Hits 337

Huffington Post

by Xaque Gruber

One of the year's most touching documentary films, Best and Most Beautiful Things, makes its world premiere this month at SXSW. A provocative and joyous coming of age portrait of precocious 20 year old Michelle Smith of rural Maine, she's both legally blind and diagnosed on the autism spectrum, but the film does not pander to that. She bursts off the screen as someone immensely relatable. You'll want to know her. This is a powerful, affecting journey into a young woman's mind as she searches for connection and empowerment by exploring life outside the limits of "normal" through a "fringe community."

I had the pleasure of speaking with the film's Executive Producer, Kevin Bright, who has succeeded in navigating the waters of both TV (he was Executive Producer of Friends) and film (his previous documentary work includes directing the 2007 film about his vaudevillian father, Who Ordered Tax?). Kevin executive produced the film with Claudia Bright.

Xaque Gruber: What was it about this project that attracted you? How did it find you?

 

Kevin Bright: My involvement with the project began in 2009 when I started a filmmaking class for students at the Perkins School for The Blind in Watertown, Massachusetts. Michelle Smith was in that first class and was part of a group that made an award winning film Seeing Through the Lens. I loved the impact the film had on these students, giving them the power to tell their stories to the world. Our director, Garrett Zevgetis, was a volunteer at Perkins who at that time was making a short film about the impact of Helen Keller on current Perkins students. After seeing an early cut, my recommendation was to focus the film on Michelle as a "modern day Helen Keller". Garrett filmed Michelle - it was a 20 minute short that became a feature film and now here we are with a premiere at SXSW.

 

XG: Let's talk about Michelle Smith. She is legally blind, on the autism spectrum and lives in rural Maine - with those details she seems plucked from a Stephen King novel. She's bound to win over many fans and hearts. Tell me what it was like working with her and do you see any of yourself in Michelle?

 

KB: Michelle is an inspiration to me. She could roll over and be a victim of her disability, instead she embraces it and challenges the rest of us to step out of our comfort zone and be open to different people and life styles, "unlearning normal" as Michelle says. Everyone falls for Michelle because she draws you in, makes a connection, but sometimes, can really shock you. Pity is not what she seeks, it is not in her vocabulary. ...

"Did Airbnb delete this woman’s account because she’s a sex worker?"

on Tuesday, 08 March 2016. Hits 387

Fusion

by Ethan Chiel

 

Julie Simone had heard wonderful things about Airbnb. “So many of my friends, when I was at [the Adult Entertainment Expo] in January, had used Airbnb and were like, ‘It’s really great, that’s who you should use when you travel, because y’know, you can cook your own meals, it’s cheaper than a hotel,'” she told me over the phone, quickly adding, “That’s why I tried it, because I can probably rattle off like ten sex workers that I know that rent from them.”

 

So Simone signed up for Airbnb for a trip to New York she’s making soon. She found a comfortable apartment in Queens and got a notification that her host had confirmed the booking. But then, an hour later, she got a nasty surprise: the company told her it didn’t want her as a customer.

Simone (her professional name) suspected the problem was her job: she is a dominatrix, as well as a pornographic actor and director, and has been for years.

 

Along with an apology for inconveniencing her and an assurance she’d be refunded, the email from Airbnb read as follows:

 

We wanted to reach out to you regarding your Airbnb account. After a routine review, and given information uncovered pursuant to online public records, we have determined that it is in the best interest of Airbnb, and for the users on our site, to deactivate your account permanently. We realize that this may come as a disappointment and that you may have questions regarding this determination. We hope you understand that this decision is exercised at our sole discretion and that we are not obligated to provide an explanation as to the action taken against your account, nor are we liable to a user in any way with respect to deactivating or canceling his or her account.

 

Simone told me that she has good credit and no criminal record, so she is convinced that her status as a porn star and sex worker is the reason she was rejected. A spokesman for Airbnb told me that he couldn’t on the specifics of the case “[f]or privacy reasons,” and added that, “As a general matter we constantly review our platform to ensure that the use of listings are in line with what our hosts and guests both expect.” (AirBnb did not immediately respond to a request for comment on how they handle discrepancies between users’ legal names and other aliases, professional or otherwise, in their background checks.) ...

 

"Federal Court Rules You Have No Constitutional Right to Engage in 100% Consensual Rough Sex"

on Tuesday, 08 March 2016. Hits 641

The Free Thought Project

by Matt Agorist

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia released its decision in the case of Doe v. George Mason University et al. and, for some reason, they felt compelled to weigh in on whether there is a constitutional right to engage in consensual BDSM sex. Their answer is, ‘no.’

In the case of Doe v. George Mason University et al., a George Mason student was expelled for allegedly having sex with a woman without her consent because he failed to stop their BDSM sex after his partner said the ‘safe word.’

The plaintiff alleged that the George Mason University administration “‘disregarded’ the BDSM context of the relationship and how it ‘affected matters like consent and related issues’ and treated a BDSM relationship as ‘per se sexual misconduct,’” and thus violated his right to engage in consensual sexual activity as well.+

There is no question, forcing sex on an unwilling partner is rape and is reprehensible in any capacity. However, the court’s ruling went on to address consent as well.

In their decision, the court addressed the entire practice known collectively as “BDSM,” which is an acronym for the acts it entails, namely bondage, discipline, dominance, submission, sadism, and masochism.

The court found that banning or outlawing consensual BDSM is justified as it will ‘protect’ any future participants who may be harmed by their decision to engage in such acts.

“A legislative restriction on BDSM activity is justifiable by reference to the state’s interest in the protection of vulnerable persons, i.e. sexual partners placed in situations with an elevated risk of physical harm,” stated the ruling.

The slippery logic used by the court for their justification, in this case, is dangerous. The court claims since there is no deeply rooted history in BDSM, then the federal government has every right to ban it, in spite of the act being entirely consensual. ...

"No constitutional right to engage in consensual BDSM sex"

on Monday, 07 March 2016. Hits 377

Washington Post

By Eugene Volokh

Besides the interesting free speech and due process holdings, the federal district court’s decision in Doe v. Rector & Visitors of George Mason Univ. also discusses whether there is a constitutional right to engage in consensual BDSM sex. No, says, the court, rejecting the view that Lawrence v. Texas creates a general constitutional right to adult noncommercial sexual autonomy.

 

The plaintiff student was expelled for allegedly having sex with a woman without her consent, by refusing to stop a BDSM sexual act when his sexual partner said the safe word. But his claim was that, in adjudicating the case, the university administration “‘disregarded’ the BDSM context of the relationship and how it ‘affected matters like consent and related issues’ and treated a BDSM relationship as ‘per se sexual misconduct,’” and thus violated his right to engage in consensual sexual activity as well. This gave the court occasion to consider whether there is such a right; here is how the court responded:

...In this respect, the conclusion … that there is no deeply rooted history or tradition of BDSM sexual activity remains relevant and important to the analysis. Also relevant and important to the analysis is the absence of a history of impermissible animus as the basis for the restriction at issue here. Sexual activity that involves binding and gagging or the use of physical force such as spanking or choking poses certain inherent risks to personal safety not present in more traditional types of sexual activity. Thus, as in Cruzan and Glucksberg, a legislative restriction on BDSM activity is justifiable by reference to the state’s interest in the protection of vulnerable persons, i.e. sexual partners placed in situations with an elevated risk of physical harm.

 

Accordingly, consistent with the logic of Lawrence, plaintiff has no constitutionally protected and judicially enforceable fundamental liberty interest under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to engage in BDSM sexual activity.

 

"This Study Says Open Relationships Are NBD"

on Monday, 07 March 2016. Hits 273

Brit + Co

BY KELSEY NELSON

Relationships come in all shapes and sizes. There’s the myriad online dating apps to check out for romantic prospects, long engagements and, if we’re really lucky, we’ll have a chance to uncrown America’s longest-married couple. But what about the relationships that fall outside the spectrum of what’s considered “normal” (as if that’s actually a thing anymore)? According to a new study on relationships in America, open relationships are NBD.

The new study from Avvo, an online attorney directory, discovered that 51 percent of adults aged 18-23 (college-aged) and 57 percent of adults aged 24-32 (post-college) reported not being “morally opposed” to being in an open relationship, compared to 44 percent of adults 33 years and older.

So what accounts for the higher acceptance in younger generations? Are we all just young and dumb in love? University of Washington sociologist and sexologist Dr. Pepper Schwartz told Avvo, “When we’re young and out in the world on our own for the first time, we’re more apt to experiment with our romantic relationships and be open to new experiences when it comes to love and sex.” ...

 

Latest Reader Comments

  • How do I follow this blog? How do I keep updated? Good that you have this.

    James Graves

    21. May, 2016 |

  • I would gently say that this self appointed "sexologist" needs some significant councilling to help him deal with his damaging and...

    Robyn

    12. May, 2016 |

  • I am looking forward to being able to hear the recorded sessions from the Consent Summit. So grateful that you were able to do this for...

    Chris

    28. April, 2016 |

  • Thanks for posting your note and calling out to others looking for professional dialogue, networking and resources around serving LGBTQ,...

    Cindy Trawinski, Psy.D.

    28. April, 2016 |

  • This makes a great deal of sense as it fits very much in with foreplay and some very sensual lead up to some excellent mind, body, soul &...

    M.Wryter

    13. April, 2016 |

  • The problem for the judge was that the cpomplainants withheld important relevant information and changed their stories significantly...

    Nancy

    26. March, 2016 |