In light of the fact that your intrepid sex reporter is attending the Exxxotica convention this upcoming weekend in NJ, and will have plenty of tales to tell from it, I thought why not take a spin round the globe to see whatâ€™s happening in the world of sex.
Item # 1.
In the town of Lugano, Swizzerland prostitutes are currently being trained to use defibrillators. If the girls encounter an eager but elderly customer or a man comes to them with not the healthiest heart, the john can know no matter what activity he engages in that if he suffers a heart attack, his prostitute will be able to possibly save him. Lugano’s health officials are all in favor of this new measure, once again illustrating the difference between European views on prostitution as opposed to ours. And seeing as Lugano contains 38 sex clubs, the sheer number of johns makes prostitution a lucrative business. As one local sex club owner said: “Having customers die on us isn’t exactly good publicity.”
An understatement if I have ever heard one.
In the UK, a study was published showing that men who frequent prostitutes are leaving the â€œdatesâ€Â feeling disappointed, guilty and even lonelier than they had been before seeing their sex workerâ€¦supposedly half of these johns were married men. Is this a case of prostitutes not doing their job correctly or some sort of general societal ennui over sex when it is paid for?
The question as I see it is, a man (or woman) sees a prostitute for generally one reason. If he or she leaves the encounter unfulfilled physically, that is the fault of the prostitute he or she has paid, pure and simple. But according to the report, men are leaving feeling worse mentally and emotionally and itâ€™s not just simply a case of â€˜the guiltsâ€™ (though to be sure, the study mentions guilt) so why are men simply not happy with just visiting a girl, paying for sex and then leaving? Does this speak more positively for monogamy or is this a cautionary step for those considering it?
Item #3. (and I cautioned about surveys and counting before, didnâ€™t I?)
According to a new study that followed 600 students over the course of three years, teens who have oral sex in high-school are more likely to have sex than teens who refrain from oral sex. Are the kids who are possibly primed by mouths on their privates more prone to go all the way? Is a B.J. a gateway drug?
It is well known by the layman as well as the sexual psychologist that modern day teens do not view oral sex as sex, making a Bill Clinton-like distinction. Allowing for this then, oral sex
might not really be the catalyst to intercourse and this study might be flawed in its findings. Is it just possible that the kids having oral sex are simply the kids who are sexual and therefore will find themselves doing it before other kids, regardless if they are putting their mouth on a you-know-what or on a piece of pizza!
Food for thought?