An Alternative Christmas Message

An Alternative Christmas Message

Dear Readers,

I trust you are all waking up around the world and enjoying this festive season.

If you are lucky enough to start this Christmas morn with your chosen lover, then I hope you have a glorious morning fuck, with plenty of cummy cums and wonderful togetherness.

If you are unfortunate to be apart from your lover, then do a little masturbation, thinking of your lovely one and get yourself all excited at the prospect of a bonking reunion at some point in the future.

Sex is important at any time of the year. Togetherness seems to be emphasised at Christmas time and yet we tend to be apart from the very people that we would like to spend time with due to all sorts of other commitments.

But togetherness is what I would like to talk about.

When two people come together in a sexual union, it is the most enchanting and delightful experience. Feeling the rise of a healthy cock in response to a mere kiss and thought of fucking is something that makes my pussy gurgle. Seeing a wet cunt springing to life at the mere prospect of being filled is utterly wonderful, and yet these things are only part of a special togetherness that some unions can have.

Looking into the eyes of someone that you care for as they slip inside you instantly brings my pussy to life. Feeling the closeness of body and mind when you are wrapped in and around one another brings forth a special kind of intimacy.

Talking in bed after being sensationally fucked, drifting in and out of the other world of post coital bliss is something that makes togetherness so important, so life-giving, for me.

Sex is wonderful. Sex of any sort is invigorating and divine. It brings forth all manner of delights; physical as well as mentally stimulating. But without the togetherness, it pales into insignificance compared with what it could be.

My Christmas message to all folk is to remember the importance of sex, to remember how precious an experience it is, to remember that nobody should ever settle for anything other than good sex.

By all means, fuck beautiful women who need a fuck, open your legs for lovely men who need a shag, delight in recreational horniness but nothing, nothing will get you to a pinnacle of sexual experience than the real, warm and honest togetherness of love-making in its most intimate form, where mind and body and soul are inseparable if only for a moment.

I hope you all manage to take some time today for a quiet moment of sex.

Perhaps it will be the real deal, as outlined above. Lucky people. Enjoy it and think about those less fortunate than yourselves.

Think about making love to the most special of people in your lives. Be confident and assured in the knowledge that they would like to be with you right now, following a path to Satori.

Think about how important sex is going to be for the New Year. MAKE it important. Bring it into your life with renewed vigour and excitement.

The world would surely be a happier place if more people were having an honest relationship with their sexuality.

So Happy Christmas fucking. Whoever you are. Wherever you are.

And perhaps you might like to tell Zenpuss all about your Christmas sex at some point in the future.

Sex and Clothing

In a recent blog, I mistakenly suggested that the next one I wrote was going to be about the inappropriate sexualisation of children (See Sublime and Ridiculous). You see the world of sex is so fascinating and so diverse that my mind got diverted to another couple of subjects. So the comment on children went from my mind.

But it shouldn’t have done so because it is an incredibly important subject, and one that really illustrates our weird, confused and dishonest relationship with sex.

This is a subject that was discussed during the General Election and was reiterated a couple of weeks ago in the national press. To be fair to the Prime Minister, he has consistently advocated this as a serious issue and has prompted interventions with retailers to try and legislate against the inappropriate clothing that is sold to young girls.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/apr/16/children-clothing-survey-bikini-heels

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/8181353/Crackdown-on-companies-guilty-of-sexualisation-of-children.html

I do not want to see overtly sexual clothing on children. I find it utterly offensive and unsuitable. Girls wearing T-shirts saying “Future Porn Star” is simply not on. It should be banned.

Now, regular readers of this blog will know that I am not averse to viewing porn. But I am a middle aged woman with a mind of her own who has developed her sense of sexuality over many years. Viewing pornography is a choice that I have made. It is a choice that I have come to through considerable deliberation with my views on sexuality, feminism, exploitation to name but a few. I am not anti-porn but I am very much against young girls wearing these allegedly aspirational T-shirts about something they have no right to know anything about.

It doesn’t stop there. There are shoes in the shops that, apart from being over-sexual, will also deform a growing foot if worn regularly. There are padded bikini tops for six year olds! There are mini-skirts and thongs for those still in infant school. The list is endless, and it is not restricted to the alleged lower end of the market in the high street. It is everywhere.

I want this stopped but I think it is important for us to consider the underlying messages behind this issue.

For instance, why would anyone think this is appropriate?

Obviously, the retailers have done their market research before putting these clothes out there and they know that they will sell. In some ways they are not the ones with the problem other than their overt and abusive capitalist tendencies, which is always a problem.

The real problem lies with the people who are prepared to buy these products, and again, it is not necessarily their fault that consumerism has obliterated common sense. Marketing and advertising is a cruel and ruthless world that strips us of rationality. But it does make me wonder whether these people have ever considered what they are doing, and is their willingness to buy these items down to their own lack of understanding about the whole subject of sexuality?

I have said it before and it is worth reiterating once more. Sex is such a vital and important ingredient in life that it should not be trivialised, ignored and misinterpreted.

I love sex. I love the passion and the force of it. I love the sensation of sex, both before, during and after the actual penetration.

I feel so passionate about sex and am frankly appalled at the lack of respect in sex that leads retailers to even consider using it to sell products to children. Indeed, I am so passionate about sex, I’m not sure that retailers should use it to sell products to anyone (but I am not that naive).

But it isn’t just the lack of respect of retailers. It is the buyers who also have a lack of respect for sex. If they valued, understood and appreciated sex more, they would understand the inappropriateness of shoving it in the faces of young people.

Sex is not for young people. It is so vital and it is something that is so personal that it should take years of growth and understanding to finally get to a true understanding of one’s own sexuality and the sexuality of others.

But it is even more than this. Once more, because of our appallingly unenlightened sex education in this country, and because of our prudish inability to discuss sex, we cannot have a debate about the inappropriateness of sexualised clothing because we still, as a society, cannot even mention the “S” word without acute discomfort. This, in itself, enables the capitalist retailers to do what they do best – exploit.

They exploit our inability to cope with sex and we, in turn, think that by buying these products are showing a liberated view of sex. Wrong, wrong, wrong!

There is nothing liberating about dressing young girls up in high heels, ra-ra skirts, thongs and padded bras. It is downright wrong in every sense.

We should be actively encouraging people NOT to buy these senseless products. We should be having national debates about sex regularly; organised and informal so that people will see for themselves the hopeless abuse of having such items of clothing in our shops.

We need to wake up to what is appropriate and inappropriate and we need to learn to love sex so much that it is instinctively inappropriate for it to be something that children should be involved in.

It should be instinctive anyway!

We need to protect children from sex not because it is a dirty and horrible activity but because it is a precious perfection that should only be entered into when the mind, body and soul is mature enough to deal with it.

So if people think that I am sounding contradictory, I would implore you to think about sex and what it means to you.

I want my children to embrace their sexuality and hold it so dear that they will not want it abused. I want them to know how this essence in life is so important that it should not be entered into without serious and careful consideration.

Shoving them into inappropriate clothing before their minds have even accounted for what they are wearing is not the way to do it, folks.

And here comes another issue that others might consider contradictory but I think completes the argument.

I have no problem at all in people of a certain age wanting to enjoy their sexuality through clothing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1338650/Writers-argue-acceptable-display-cleavage-office.html

This is an article about cleavages and whether it is appropriate to use a healthy cleavage for career or any other advancement. More on this in a short while.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338871/No-sexiness-city-Female-staff-ordered-wear-flesh-coloured-underwear-UBS.html

On the same day, and in the same newspaper there was an article about UBS bank informing their employees of what they should and should not wear to work. For those versed in the beautiful French language, please see attached pdf if full.

http://www.letemps.ch/rw/Le_Temps/Quotidien/2010/12/09/Culture%20&%20Societe/ImagesWeb/Dresscode_F.pdf

Oh dear! More evidence of our inadvertent misunderstanding of all things sexual!

I think that everyone over a certain age should thoroughly enjoy their sexuality and if this means wearing clothes that accentuate their cleavage, showing off their very beautiful assets then why the hell not?

Of course, sometimes, it is far from inappropriate and once more, I do think sex is so vital that it should not be abused and exploited in any form, including using your tits to get ahead.

So here is an important differentiation. If a woman is wearing certain clothes and revealing her cleavage or a small amount of it because it makes her feel good about herself, then that, in my opinion is fine, as long as it remains within the boundaries of the professional.

However, if she is deliberately flaunting herself with a view to using her sexuality for advancement in a career, then I am not sure I like that.

Sex is precious and if we respected that it would not be abused in any form.

However, having said all of the above, I can appreciate the need, in a misogynistic world, for women to use every asset available to them if they feel that traditional meritocracy has not worked.

Women in the work force still earn considerably less than their male counterparts. Despite being allegedly more successful through academic attainment, the amount of women in top jobs is still disproportionate to men. Sometimes, using a bit of female ingenuity and a flash of tits is the only way forward.

There is also a need to differentiate between using clothing in a sexual way for career advancement and a healthy amount of natural flirting.

The world would be a terribly tedious place if there was no flirting, if there was no chemistry between people be it fleeting or something more serious.

Sexual attraction is also a vital component of life, and even if you have no intention of ever acting on it, a little flirtation is not a bad thing.

I told you that this sex malarkey was complex!

The final remark that I want to make goes back to the first contributor in the Daily Mail cleavage article. She says that she was so fed up with people thinking that she was using her tits for career advancement that she had them reduced.

Bloody hell! That is somewhat drastic. I have heard of people having their hair cut off because they were harassed by continual taunts from sexual predators but this is something completely different.

The point is that we should be much more respectful of individuality. Big tits, small tits, provocative clothing, baggy sacks! People should be allowed to be who they are. Those who feel comfortable in tight skirts should, within reason, be allowed to wear them. Fuck me shoes should be worn by people who like wearing high heels, not because others make assumptions about what these shoes could mean.

In this society we are sexualising the wrong things and ignoring the most important ways to convey sexuality. We have a hopelessly dishonest relationship with sexuality that is shown through our inability to understand how we dress, why we dress and how we should be dressing our young.

Confusion will continue if people cannot come to terms with the joy, the preciousness and the individuality of sex.

Or maybe because sex involves more than one person, it is always going to be a subject that is open to a myriad of interpretations.

Being Bisexual

Being Bisexual

Here’s a real live problem from an agony aunt letter to the newspaper this week.

“I am a 45-year-old single woman and really confused about my sexuality. I have had two long-term relationships, both with men, but was not in love with either of them, and didn't enjoy the sex. Sexually, I much prefer women. However, I have never been in love with a woman – the only people I have fallen for have been male, and unavailable. How people fall in love with someone who reciprocates is a mystery to me, and I don't even know where to start, or which sex to start with. How can I fall in love only with men, but find sex arousing only with women? Am I gay? Bi? Straight but bicurious? Just totally messed up?”

There are probably a few essays in this small letter from a woman who could really do with some useful advice. Sadly, some of the contributors of aforementioned advice on the website are not the people that this woman should be listening to.

Take this delightful comment for an example of someone who doesn’t “geddit”.

“I don't believe in Bi-sexual people - as Phoebe from Friends knowingly sings about Bi sexual relationships ..."but I think they are just kidding themselves". Amen. The couple of Bi's I knew at Uni became gay after Uni.

You are gay as you like sex with women - that is the "sexual part" of being hetero or homo sexual, but there are loads of heterosexual men and women who have better relationships with the same or different sex - I am straight but have great, very close, non-sexual relationships with some male friends - I would say you just need to find the right woman.”

And then there is someone thankfully counteracting this.

“I think sexuality can be very fluid for some. Perhaps it could help for a moment to lump together men and women as just 'people' - you would then be saying something like 'I have great sex with some people', 'I stay in relationships with bad sex', and 'I have fallen for unavailable people'. I think it is important to ask yourself why? - with regard to each of those statements, irregardless of the persons gender.”

But even this doesn’t really cover the issues.

In my opinion, for what it is worth, there are a variety of issues going on for this woman at the moment and I would like to deal with these questions separately.

1.       Is she bisexual?

2.       What does she mean when she says “falling in love”?

3.       Is there any correlation between “falling in love” and the unavailability of the people that she has allegedly fallen in love with?

4.       Can you have fabulous sex without being “in love”?

5.       Do we have to label ourselves sexually for life?

There are more questions that I would like to pose from the two responses that I have chosen to comment on.

·         Does an attraction for people of the same sex make you gay?

·         Does she really need to find a ‘woman’ or just a ‘someone’?

·         Does she really need to ‘find’ anyone?

·         Does bisexuality automatically lead to homosexuality?

·         Why do people stay in relationships with bad sex?

·         What is so enticing about the unavailable?

·         Irregardless????

For what it is worth, I don’t think this woman is gay. I think she needs some serious help on discovering herself and her sexuality which is not dependent upon other people, be they male, female, gay, straight, bi or even transgender. She needs to differentiate between sexual desire and being ‘in love’ but then again, don’t half of the population suffer from the same lack of understanding? And I hasten to add, this is a difficult one because good sex is certainly enhanced by feeling an incredible intimacy with the person that you are fucking.

So let us look at those questions that I have posed individually.

1.       Is she bisexual?

I hate labels. They are conformity’s chastity belt. They constrain and perpetuate the status quo. They are the anarchist’s nightmare. Why does she have to declare herself as gay, straight with a bi-curiosity or bisexual? However, as the question has been posed, I might respond as thus – Aren’t we all darling?

Obviously, there are some people who are more heterosexual than others, i.e. that they simply would not even consider the thought of being attracted to someone of the same sex but I would suggest that some of these people, particularly if they are women, are possibly suppressing bisexual tendencies.

There is nothing wrong with admitting that you like to look or even feel the body of someone who is the same sex as you but this does not necessarily make you bisexual. Wouldn’t it be such an easier world if we could get people to admit and appreciate that they are sexual in the first instance? Once people have accepted that they are sexual beings and what that entails, the need for additional labels such as bi or gay become irrelevant.

However, we are not there yet. The sexual liberation has stagnated and a new sixties is required. I just hope we don’t have to wait until 2060 for it to happen.

So, is this woman bisexual? Highly likely, and so what? If she were to declare herself as bisexual, she might actually find herself more attractive to the very men that she seems to want. Good, sexually honest men love a bit of bisexuality and despite the quote from “Friends” bisexual people are not kidding themselves. They are possibly far more open and honest with themselves as sexual beings than the rest of the population.

2.       What does she mean when she says “falling in love”?

We use this phrase so readily without truly exploring what it means. If you look at her actual writing, you could think that she means “being aroused” when she uses the phrase in the first instance. She has been in two relationships but has not been in love (sexually aroused). When she talks about never being ‘in love’ with a woman, perhaps she means that she has never had a relationship with a woman though has been aroused, which means that the phrase has already taken on a new meaning.

On the news today, they were talking about Kate and Wills being “in love” because they have declared their intention to get married and the photographs by Mario Testino apparently capture their “in-loveness”. Who are we to say whether they are in love or not? I don’t know William or Kate and neither do the royal correspondents for all their trekking around the world to take insignificant and unimportant photos of the unimportant events that they attend. What the hell do they mean when they say they are “in love”?

It’s actually quite a dangerous phrase.

There are some people who think that being in love is a false and transient state of being; an alleged natural high that is unnatural and unsustainable, an image of intimacy rather than intimacy itself, a dependency that can be destructive where you lose yourself into a relationship that has no grounding.

There are others who think that being in love is the pinnacle of companionship; that being in love is the coming together of mind, body and soul that goes well beyond a marriage or a relationship but do they use the phrase “in love” correctly? Or do they just mean that two people love one another?

It’s a flippant phrase. It captures nothing about the extent and value of relationships. And it is a judgment that nobody other than the people involved in a relationship can comment upon. It is a stock phrase that is supposed to demonstrate to others that a couple (another label) are together, committed.

If I am honest, I would much prefer someone to hear someone say that they are completely themselves when they are with me rather than saying that ‘we’ are ‘in love’. I think that says far more about the strength of passion, intimacy and feelings than this silly meaningless phrase that is easily banded around and is so open to interpretation.

“How can I fall in love only with men, but find sex arousing only with women?”

You can’t lady! You cannot possibly be ‘in love’ without the utter brilliance of sexual arousal.

If we are hopeless enough to think of being ‘in love’ as the pinnacle of a relationship, then how can you possibly be ‘in love’ without physical passion being part of that.

Loving someone, as I think she possibly means here, involves everything; sex, passion, loving kindness, desire, companionship, compassion, equity, balance, trust, respect and so the list goes on.

If one aspect of this is missing, the love cannot be there and it certainly cannot grow.

I suspect that what she really means is “how come I have only had relationships with men but find sex arousing only with women?”

Maybe she, like others, may find that living with or being in a relationship with men may only ever hit certain buttons and having sex with a woman may also only hit certain buttons.

Doesn’t this reiterate the issue of exclusivity, reminding us that declaring an intention to be with one person solely may not actually be the right thing to do?

3.       Is there any correlation between “falling in love” and the unavailability of the people that she has allegedly fallen in love with?

I am going to keep this response short but it probably needs a revisit all of its own.

“Falling in love” suggests something that is unattainable. Ergo the people are unavailable!

But seriously, this woman seems to be under the impression that there is this ideal of falling in love and being with this special person for the rest of her days. The fact that these people are unavailable reiterates the stupidity of that phrase once more.

It’s all a dream! Imagery gone awry! It sounds as though she is a hopeless romantic with a preconceived notion of what to expect from a relationship. What she cannot seem to understand is that the unavailability of the people she thinks she is in love with shows that the ‘in love’ is the wrong thing to aspire to.

Falling in love with “someone who reciprocates” means NOT falling in love with them!

Loving someone who reciprocates is a different issue.

4.       Can you have fabulous sex without being “in love”?

I suspect that you can have excellent sex with someone that you are not ‘in love’ with. I have fucking brilliant sex with someone I am not ‘in love’ with. However, I love him passionately and intimately, whatever “love” means.

Sex with someone that you have an intense passion and respect for has to be the most brilliant sex of all. Togetherness like that, where the mind is being fucked as much as the body, where the spirituality and the sensuality is intertwined with the physical, where the passion does not stop with penetration is the most incredible thing that I have ever experienced.

In some ways, I never want sex again without that.

However, I also recognise that sex is sex. It is a physical thang! You can have rather exciting, energetic, arousing sex with someone you do not have feelings for because sex is fun in its own right.

If you want to pinnacle of sex, then in my opinion, it cannot be bettered than when it is intelligent sex that combines the physical, emotional and spiritual in mind, body and soul.

5.       Do we have to label ourselves sexually for life?

There is a short response to this.

No!

Why is this woman so hung up on labelling herself in a certain category of sexuality?
I do not consider myself heterosexual. I do not consider myself bisexual. I do not consider myself gay because I fucking adore big cocks in my needy cunt!

Seriously, I have spent most of my life fucking men. I adore being fucked by a man who knows how to arouse me. I like sex. I like penetrative sex. I want cock and I cannot imagine being totally fulfilled without it. However, fingers excite me too and it is not only men that have long fingers that can reach inside my pussy and make me cum.

I love looking at the beautiful curves on a woman. I love breasts. I adore full bushes of pubes. I love the roundness of hips and the prettiness of faces.

I happen to enjoy male company probably more than female company but I do like women and would happily kiss and cuddle and fuck another woman. That is immensely exciting and arousing.

But I do not really want to put a label on all of that.

As I said earlier, it is time we labelled ourselves as one thing and one thing only – as a sexual being. The rest loses significance once we have done that.

And so penultimately, to the bullet points

·         Does an attraction for people of the same sex make you gay?

·         Does she really need to find a ‘woman’ or just a ‘someone’?

·         Does she really need to ‘find’ anyone?

·         Does bisexuality automatically lead to homosexuality?

·         Why do people stay in relationships with bad sex?

·         What is so enticing about the unavailable?

And I shall be brief.

Firstly, no. Finding a woman attractive does not make you gay if you are a woman. It is the most pathetically generalistic and useless thing to say. There are plenty of women who look at other women, see their beauty and would never feel comfortable licking another pussy. They are not gay or bi. They just appreciate the look of other women, and may even be excited by them.

Secondly and thirdly, I am beginning to think that this woman just wants a special person, be it male or female. My only advice to her would be find yourself before you go searching for others and you may come to the conclusion that you don’t actually want another.

We are indoctrinated into thinking that the only way to live is in coupledom.

Maybe this is the very first piece of advice that this woman should be given; that this is not the thing to which she should aspire.

In true Zen fashion, she should be encouraged to find her path, live her life without searching but constantly keeping her eyes and other senses open for the possibilities that life can give. Seekers will not find, and even if they think they have, the fulfilment may be lost in the ‘finding’.

It is wonderful to have a special person in your life. It feels damn good but it is more important to find you first. If that ‘you’ happens to enjoy another ‘you’ without losing either of ‘you’ in the process, then congratulations!

Fourthly, no!

Fucking other women is not going to make me into a lesbian. Not in a month of Sundays. I am not ruling out the possibility of, in the future, having my most important relationship with another woman. I actually don’t think this is likely but I am not ruling it out. My sexuality, as I stated earlier, is fluid (very!!).

A friend of mine recently said to me that she was not attracted to a man or a woman. She was attracted to caring, loving and gorgeous people irrespective of their gender.

What a sensible woman she is!

In response to the fifth bullet point, what is the point of staying in a relationship with bad sex but there are millions who do. Let’s not dwell on this. There are reasons why people stay in relationships irrespective of the sex but I cannot now understand why people do so if they have the means to get out.

And what is so enticing about the unavailable? I think I have probably already covered this but I do think it is to do with people’s misguided views on what to expect from a relationship.

Having a vision of a perfect relationship is setting everyone up for a fall. Living in a falseness of expectation is not going to make for true happiness.

Appreciating individuality and not dancing around with impossible expectations has to be the way we should live.

Finally, I have been looking at these ‘problems’ in the newspaper for a few years now. Even though the specialist agony aunt is an intelligent and unconventional person, her responses are often very traditional.

Let’s stop labelling. Let’s start living. Let’s embrace sexuality without dependency.

Isn’t this the message that this woman could really do with hearing?

The Night Virgin's Progress

The Night Virgin’s Progress

He smothers her with warmth

As he glides across her thighs

Enveloping her loneliness

With every sound she sighs.

He feels his way towards her

Delighting in the touch

Enveloping her loveliness

With a need to give so much.

He wraps himself around her

Arms stretched across her chest

Enveloping her womanhood

With motions towards her breast.

He slides through to her pussy

As she opens forth her legs

Enveloping her sexiness

With hopefulness as she begs.

He clambers up above her

His weight descending down

Enveloping her totally

With strength to lose her frown.

He clasps himself around her

Mirroring her frame

Enveloping her body

A duvet is his name!

From the Sublime to the Ridiculous

From the Sublime to the Ridiculous – but which way round?

Sex is important. I think we have that one well established. It seems to inspire plenty of comment when there is an article about sex in the media, and yesterday was full of it.

Of course, every day should be full of it because it is such an important subject, and even if you choose abstinence, it is something that everyone has considered at some point in their lives.

So why are we still so confused by this essential part of life? Why does it have such complicated responses and views? Why do people find it so difficult to differentiate between loving intimacy and the physical act of sex? Why is there so much contradiction?

To illustrate the latter, let us look at two aspects of sexual entertainment; burlesque and lap dancing.

Both are currently in the news, both are rising in popularity and trendiness, both serve a purpose in the sexuality stakes, yet one is deemed as an acceptable, jaunty amusement and the other is a seen as a societal horror.

If you go to any local press website and review the last six months of stories, you will probably find an article or three about planning permission problems for lap-dancing clubs. Even the national press over the last year has carried a fair proportion of these stories, where local residents complain about the increase in ‘adult’ clubs and feminists worry about the exploitation of the vulnerable.

Liberal minded councillors are thrown into some sort of moral dilemma, juggling the rights of the individual to self-express and the needs of the community as well as a heavy dose of political correctness that usually sways them into the defensive.

It always amazes me how these clubs apparently get planning permission as long as they are not situated in close proximity to a school.

Why is this the case? Do they think that children only congregate at schools and are oblivious to their local surroundings at all other times? If a club was set up in the middle of nowhere, you can bet that children would still notice it. Thankfully, children still have their eyes open in a willingness and enthusiasm to learn about their world, so they would notice a club wherever it was placed.

And whilst we are on this subject, isn’t the objection regarding the proximity to children more about the adult inability to explain sex properly to children. Isn’t it about our hang ups and not the kids?

Before I go any further, I must reiterate that I regard sex as something for adults. I am appalled at the sexualisation of young people; something that I will comment on in the next post. However, we do our next generation no favours whatsoever by pretending that sex does not exist. Believe me, they know it is there and our inability to be honest and straight forward about sex makes the children all the more curious. We should explicitly tell these young people that sex is the most exhilarating, fascinating, brilliant and special thing in life, which is why it should only be entered into when the mind, body and spirit is ready for it, i.e. it is NOT for kids.

So, back to the Lap Dancing clubs; the scourge of local councils across the country. Should they allow these clubs to flourish? Is it not a safe place for those in “the trade” to sell their wares rather than endure the dangers of street prostitution? And there lies another myth – the two are not connected. Lap dancers titillate. They do not all offer anything other than a healthy dose of voyeurism. There are some that will do “extras” but in the main, they are just there to excite and energise the customer into feeling a little horny, enabling them to legally do something about it.

Lap dancing does not equate to free sex for all, or even paid sex.

Here, I return to one of my favourite subjects – female sexuality. The simple fact is that people cannot believe that women actually enjoy their sexuality and enjoy displaying their sexuality and their bodies because it makes them feel good. Nobody seems to understand that some of these women are doing this because they find it empowering to be so forthright and proud of their bodies.

I wish I had had the sort of sexual mentality that I have now when my body was more beautiful. I would happily cavort around a pole, simulating fucking, exciting the onlooker if I felt completely comfortable with my body being able to be appreciated by others.

Whether the clubs are just basic lap or pole-dancing places or whether they are offering something a little more sensational, they are frequently seen as tawdry, tasteless and corrupt places.

Quite frankly, in a contemporary world where full blown hard-core sex is but a mere hit of a mouse away, the lap dancers are incredibly tame.

Of course, there is a huge difference between the two dimensional viewing on a flat screen and having a curvaceous beauty feeling her tits in front of your face, but as was the case with “dirty mags” from decades ago, the cunt stays firmly out of reach or view, and even when they are on show, it is only that. A punter who gets too near or too frisky is soon given a metaphorical dose of cold water.

So why the concern about these clubs?

Well, I am beginning to wonder whether it is something to do with class and social stratum. You see, it seems to me that lap dancers are seen as unseemly whereas the increase in burlesque dancing is seen as a humorous, harmless bit of fun.

And who is involved in this increase in the art form that is burlesque? Well according to the radio yesterday, it could have something to do with posh birds wanting to flaunt their fun bits as part of a middle class jocular sauciness.

Tell me, why is a nubile beauty turning herself around a pole or serving drinks with her nipples hanging out more horrendous than a fit young Sloane sticking a pair of purple hearts on her tits, swinging the twiddly bits around and around?

Now that really is immoral!

So now we turn our attention to the burlesque.

On the radio yesterday, there was a discussion about this very subject, where the contributors discussed whether this form of entertainment, and indeed exercise, was an abuse of women, or an exploitation or an empowerment or an objectification or a titillation. They discussed whether middle class and educated women should know better than to even contemplate taking their clothes off in public whilst others were intrigued as to why or whether women liked to watch other women peeling their clothes off.

On this last statement, this is probably something that makes burlesque allegedly more acceptable than lap dancing, i.e. that the voyeurs are women as much as they are men. But if I am honest, I would be equally comfortable sitting in a lap dancing club than watching a group of women performing their corseted strip. In fact, if I am completely honest, I would actually prefer to be entertained in a lap dancing club. The mere fact that I am not supposed to enjoy such activities makes it even more exciting and makes me even hornier. I’m not strange, I don’t think. People are turned on by the naughtiness of it all.

Perhaps burlesque dancing is on the increase because of this very fact; that people feel it is a bit of naughtiness and that excites them.

So we are back to our relationship with sex once more.

Taboo stature tantalises and raises those cocks and moistens those cunts far more than something conventional, accessible and acceptable.

Let’s just look more about this idea that women like looking at other women undressing.

I do.

I’m not a raving dyke but I have always been fascinated in the female form. In communal changing rooms, I have always looked, ever since I was a young girl in the school PE changing rooms. It has always seemed a pretty instinctive thing to me. There might have been times when I have been embarrassed by my need to look or have averted my eyes so that others didn’t see me looking, but I have always done it.

The thought of watching a woman strip in front of me, especially if I can grab hold of someone’s cock whilst watching, is an extreme turn on. The thought that a woman is comfortable enough with her body to want to strip is adorably empowering and excites me incredibly.

I want to be part of their sexual empowerment by enjoying the view!

So please can someone tell me why the burlesque version is more acceptable than the lap dancing?

It is all about sex. If anyone tries to tell you that burlesque dancing is not about sex, then please rid them of their pathetic excuses. It has to be about sex. It may not be the most sexually exciting thing in the world but I would place money on the honest dancers saying that they get a sexual thrill from removing their clothes and entertaining others by doing so. And guess what? The lap dancers would say the same.

Actually, I find it somewhat offensive that people suggest that learning to do burlesque is a choice whereas serving in a lap bar is exploitative. Why can we not accept that women can make these choices because they are enjoying their sexuality and part of that enjoyment is seeing the pleasure of other people in their sexuality?

It seems that some in this society do think that one (burlesque) is sublime and one (lap dancing) is ridiculous.

What I think is both sublime and ridiculous is, with the former a hint of changing attitudes to sex, and with the latter a disbelief that we still haven’t got to grips with our attitude to sex.

We need a rethink and a very swift one at that. We need to realise that women performing in lap bars are just as entitled to express their sexuality as posh birds learning to flaunt with a boa.

We need to get to grips with our attitude to sex and what we want to impart on the next generation. We need an honesty about sex and an understanding that sexuality and horniness comes in a range of forms. We need to realise that women are sexy and are finally waking up to the fact.

We need to stop contradicting ourselves about sex to the point of making us, as a society, look ridiculous.

Bring on the burlesque, lap up the dancing clubs. Get out there and dispel some myths.

Enjoy – as long as those councils allow you to do so.

The Last Taboo

The Last Taboo

Oh dear. The world is in shock again. Two grown men, both in their fifties have accidentally used the C word on national radio.

“These instances involved a slip of the tongue during a live broadcast, and we apologise for any offence caused”, said a BBC spokesperson.

I love it! Dear Auntie! They don’t even realise when they are exacerbating the situation. Personally, I think the phrase “slip of the tongue” and the word “cunt” go rather gloriously together.

Am I the only person with a one tracked mind that automatically thinks of the sexual? I doubt it.

There are undoubtedly plenty of bloggers furiously commenting on these faux pas (don’t know the plural) of the day. Most will be sniggering in gleeful amusement. Others will comment on the wonderful Freudian nature of the slips, implying that the Tory Minister is indeed a “c***”. Some will be horrified about the use of the word in public.

As they mentioned on Channel 4, it really is the last taboo; “the highly offensive word”!

So I am inclined to ask the question once more. Why?

Why is the word “cunt” so much of an unmentionable?

I have written about the subject before so for those of you who have not yet looked at my backlog of writing, I shall reiterate this point once more.

I genuinely believe that the word “cunt” needs rescuing from its tawdry status as the most reviled word in the English language. I also believe that it is probably seen as such a taboo word because society has yet to cope with the fact that female genitalia exists, even though the vast majority pass through this vital area in order to be born.

Not Macduff, of course or those with mothers that are “too posh to push”. They’re allowed to be more prudish about the cunt but the rest of us should get over it. Now!

The cunt is the most incredible piece of my body. I am told, and I have felt around for myself, that my cunt has beautiful folds and intricate details that soften and become erect according to its state of arousal. It is tender and sponge-like whilst simultaneously stiffening and ejaculating. I mean, how marvellous is that? It is succulent and juicy. It smells sexual. It excites. It is instinctive.

I am rather proud of my cunt and I am rather happy to have someone tell me that they want to see my cunt.

I am not appalled by the use of this word. In actual fact, it was one of the things that I found particularly attractive and horny about my lover when I first met him. He wasn’t remotely concerned about using the word even though he was aware of political correctness and asked me if it was okay to describe my pinky pussy in this way.

I think my response was not in words as my cunt exploded and splattered him with a response of its own.

It’s all rather Carry On-like isn’t it? Haven’t we grown up from the titillation of Barbra Windsor’s bra being flung from her in the Camping episode?

Take a look at a previous blog of mine and I commented on a friend who witnessed the lack of control when a young person mentioned the word “vagina”. Had he used the C word instead, I am sure he would have been ejected pretty promptly from the classroom whilst his peers would have been peeing themselves laughing.

My Naughtie today could not contain his laughter. He had made an error and then, with his colleagues, it all became a bit of a joke.

Now I am not saying that there is anything wrong with this as such. I’m all for childish smut and a bit of fun but sometimes I really do wish that the word “cunt” was accepted as an appropriate word to use on the radio without everyone dashing into a fit of giggles.

Wouldn’t it be great if someone could use the word “cunt” in the right context without either a plethora of complaints or a splattering of hysterics?

Just my little consideration for the day.

Eve Ensler's Vagina dialogue

I am wondering whether this cold spell has dulled my senses as I have been struggling to put finger to keyboard all week. It’s not that I have not been thinking about the many things that I could write about but they just haven’t materialised into anything as yet.

However, in celebration of World Aids Day, it appears that the wonderful Eve Ensler has written something that I finally feel a need to comment on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/01/vagina-women-prevent-aids-violence

The article starts with the most remarkable paragraph that many commenter’s have taken considerable offence to.

“Vagina is the most terrifying word, the most threatening word, in any language of any country I have ever been to. Even when the vagina is worshipped in theory, as the yoni is in India, it is denigrated in practice. It is more reviled and feared than words like plutonium, genocide and starvation. In many countries the word for female genitalia is so derogative or disgusting, it cannot be spoken in public. In a few places, there is no word in the language for vagina at all.”

Well, who would have thought that such a comment would generate such vitriol? Look at the link and see what people have to say about it.

Whilst I think there is a certain amount of poetic licence in this comment, there is a valuable point that Zenpuss has made on plenty of occasions.

The word “vagina” terrifies the living daylights out of far too many people, possibly not as much as ‘genocide’ but it is still a word that is not spoken openly and comfortably. It still engenders a weird response when someone has the courage to mention the ‘V’ word and one can sense the discomfort when it is spoken aloud.

Provide an alternative to this word, like ‘cunt’ or ‘pussy’ and people drift into a fearful fit of apoplexy. These are naughty, divisive words that cause offence with their directness and lewdness.

Only ‘vagina’, ‘cunt’ and ‘pussy’ are not dirty, naughty, lewd or dysfunctional words. They all describe the very essence of womankind with the perfectly delightful, fascinating and delicious part of the female form.

Eve Ensler is correct. People fear this word as much as the other words she mentions, and it is quite right that we should stop being so bloody stupid about it. It is time that we won the word back and gave it the sort of serenity and civility that it deserves.

Recently, a friend of mine was doing some work in a school when a young man braved the shockwaves of multiple gasps and mentioned the ‘V’ word. As he fervently and confidently talked about the vagina, his peers shrieked in shock that he had actually used the word. He was defiantly annoyed. “What else am I supposed to say?” he said, “Women’s bits?”

And he is right! I don’t want my beautiful pussy to be described as women’s bits. It sounds as though they are added extras rather than the essential part of my body. I’m rather fond of my ‘bits’ and I have it on good authority that other people are rather fond of my ‘bits’ too.

My pussy is a fascinating mixture of textures, moisture, softenings and bulges, changing second by second, minute by minute with stimulation and satisfying touches.

Each and every fold of my pussy has its own form. It is not an amalgamation of ‘bits’. It is ALL mine!

Ms Ensler went on to say that if we embraced the word ‘vagina’ the world might be able to stop the spread of AIDS.

This is where people started making objections to her unaccountable and non-verified facts.

This is a tricky one, and I am not sure that Eve Ensler did herself any favours with the article. However, I applaud her for having a go and trying to say something quite significant.

I’m just not sure that she said it as well as she could have done.

In many ways, she was trying to tackle too many subjects in one article, and this has given the impression that the theme is more eclectic and indeed disparate than it is.

The article was written for publication on World Aids Day so it had to have something about the spread of HIV. It had to have the word ‘vagina’ in because that is Ms Ensler’s bread and butter. She then went on to say that sex was still somewhat misogynist, something that Zenpuss has stated on many occasions. And then she implied that the spread of AIDS is synonymous with the world not embracing the word ‘vagina’ and ergo female sexuality.

I am intrigued by the comments on this piece. People are finding it incongruous that the spread of AIDS and the lack of comfort in the word ‘vagina’ are linked.

I’m not sure that Ms. Ensler has expressed this as well as she might but there is an incredibly important aspect to this.

If we cannot get women worldwide to love their vaginas, to know their vaginas, to explore their vaginas, to protect their vaginas, to embrace their vaginas, then all sorts of abuse and disease is possible, and not just HIV.

My pussy is MY pussy. I may choose to share its delights with others but that is my choice. If I had the urge to open my legs for a variety of people, male or female, I would use the appropriate contraception to protect myself. Why? It is patently obvious! I want to protect my most important asset, of course but the other reason is that my pussy is so important, I only want a special person to have complete access to it; uncovered, unprotected, open, needy and sensitive.

Women around the world have not, as Ensler quite rightly points out, had the right sex education to embrace their perfectly formed vaginas. Even in this country, sex education is completely factual in most cases. Discussing female masturbation is completely taboo and yet being honest about this very natural subject could resolve some seriously huge problems such as the spread of STIs and unwanted pregnancies.

If more women loved and knew their pussies, they may, like me, be more protective of it. Only they will not do this if they have not had the education. They will not do it if they have never been given the opportunity to explore and understand the essence of their womanhood.
What I don’t think Eve Ensler reiterated enough was that this is not just happening in the outward bounds of tribal villages in Africa. This lack of understanding about our own sexuality is as rife in this country and other so-called civilised societies. Our inability to even find a comfortable and acceptable word for the female organs is indicative of how much of a road we still have to travel.

As I said, the trouble with this article is that it is trying to do too much in too short a space of time with too few words. Essays have been written about female sexuality and yet people still do not listen, do not take stock and still get offended by the mere mention of the word.

It may sound far-fetched to link the word ‘vagina’ with the spread of HIV but if you consider the distorted views on female sexuality, it makes sense.

Well it does to me, anyway.

So I applaud Eve Ensler and let us hope that the Guardian newspaper gives more space and time to delve into further detail on some of the points that she made.

The real positive, of course, is that the number of comments shows that people actually do want to talk and learn more about this subject.

If Zenpuss can help in any way, Eve, you know where I am!

Celebrity Clothing

Last night I was mostly looking at Paris Hilton’s bottom. Quite a pert bottom it is too. Shame about the face but then if I had the money that Paris Hilton has, my bottom would look that pert too!

Synchronicity strikes once more for I happened upon her bottom a mere 24 hours after my lover and I had been discussing celebrity dressing and the fact that quite a few people had recently been photographed with their derrieres or tits on display.

I hadn’t been searching for Paris Hilton and her arse. It just came up on the front page of one of the more famous webs searchers. There it was, proud and exaggerated as she bent over to get something out of her car. She was wearing black leggings that became transparent as the paparazzi man’s shadow imprinted itself on her backside. You could see every line, crack and roundness.

It did make me wonder whether Paris knew what she was doing. I suspect that she did.

She had no knickers on, or if she did, she was wearing a very invisible G-String. So when she bent down to pick up the thing that had fallen out of her boot, she must have known that the cameras would take her photo and that it would reveal plenty of her toned arse.

And quite frankly, why shouldn’t she show off the best parts of her body? If she is going to be photographed wherever she goes, then she really ought to flaunt the bits of her that she thinks are most appealing.

Mylie Cyrus has just been celebrating her eighteenth birthday. She was photographed in a very uncompromising position, clearly half cut with her legs entangled in another’s. Her top was completely transparent and her bra was totally exposed.

She had chosen to go out dressed in this way because this was the look that suited her. She has a decent pair of tits for an eighteen year old and wearing a see-through top made her feel sexy.

Judging by the photos of what looked like simulated sex, her little outfit clearly got the result that she had anticipated; a good looking would-be lover between her thighs.

The beautiful and sexy Katy Perry/Brand does nothing to hide her voluptuous figure. She deliberately flaunts her wonderful figure to a world of awaiting flashing. She knows she looks bloody gorgeous and she quite rightly allows it all to be seen by the awaiting fans.

So all this flaunting is acceptable is it? Women in tights, revealing their panties is the fashion of the moment? It seems to be so.

Why are people so shocked then? Why is this more unacceptable than a woman flashing cleavage for instance?

I was thinking about this as I went for my evening swim.

There you are in the pool with complete strangers, happily and contentedly swimming around in a shared space with moreorless nothing on. An associate of mine, who I know vaguely, swims in the same place. He fashions a speedo look which hides nothing. As we climb out of the pool, me with my cleavage, him with his speedos, we talk about work totally unembarrassed by our near nudity. We wouldn’t dream of sitting at work together in our bra, panties and knickers. It would be most unseemly.

On holiday, you sit with friends and family in next to nothing and do not consider it to be weird or outlandish, and yet when you are all back in a house together with the constraints of bricks and mortar, you tightly wrap a towel around yourself as you come out of the shower, fearful that it will untie itself and reveal a body that you have already revealed to the awaiting eye on the beach only minutes before.

Boy, we are strange folk.

I mean, you wouldn’t dream of walking down to cook breakfast in your undies and yet you sit quite happily munching on a sarnie in your bikini and having a perfectly non-sexual conversation with friends as you are doing so.

We do have a very odd relationship with clothes and nudity. The juxtaposition and, quite frankly, complete hypocrisy is astounding. Why is a black bra more of a problem than a black bikini top?

What is wrong with a famous person or even a none-famous person revealing their lovely thighs in transparent trousers if they happen to have an arse worth looking at? Why is that more unacceptable than them walking around with a transparent top on revealing their bra to the world? And yet it is.

Perhaps it is something to do with, you know, what goes on down there!

Tits are functional for the milk that they produce and people can just about accept that. But showing the other bits, where man and woman jigsaw together? Hell no because then we would have to admit that we rather like cocks and cunts and our eyes would be drawn to the most precious parts of our body. And we should not look at other people’s bits, not those bits anyway.

But we are human beings. We are instinctive animals if only we would allow ourselves to be.

When I see a voluptuous woman with a good body, I am naturally drawn to inspect her cleavage. When I am walking down the street, I like to see the many beautiful forms I come across, both male and female. When I am in the swimming pool, I am naturally curious as to see what people are hiding in their trunks or their bathers. It does not mean that I am sexually attracted to every person that I see. Far from it. But I do admit to looking because that is a natural thing to do.

And if a person has the desire and confidence to draw attention to the best parts of their anatomy, then why should they not do that? Why are we so hopeless at admitting that we want to be voyeurs?

When I get dressed, I want to look good. I do not have the body of Paris Hilton, or the money sadly. I do not have the best tits or the most desirable arse in the world but what I do want to do is make myself look as presentable as possible, and in some situations I want to look as sexy as possible, and in others I just want to feel confident about how I look, sexy or not. I dress for me, and if other people take pleasure in my appearance then that is all for the good. If I can bring a smile to a face or a hard on to a cock, then that is all well and good.

If I had a body worth flaunting, I think I would flaunt it; not to attract attention but because it made ME feel good about myself (partly because of the attracted attention, let us not deny).

If I had parts of me that are sexually exciting, like good tits, and a toned tummy, I would wear the transparent tops for the world to see, not at work maybe, but elsewhere. If I had an arse to die for, I’d wear what Paris Hilton was wearing. Good on her!

Clothes can be incredibly sexy. Slightly clad people can be incredibly exciting, sometimes even more tantalising than complete nakedness – it feeds the imagination in a way that a full frontal cannot.

But we really do have an odd and contradictory relationship with clothes that in an enlightened society would not exist. A bra would be the same as a bikini top. Getting out of the pool in the altogether would be no different from sitting in a hot office in your bra.

Dream on Zenpuss. Our enlightenment is a long way off!

An Alternative Royal Wedding

Charlie Boy said that he was delighted but they took their time (pot and kettle). The wicked step-mother said it was “wicked”. Peter Broadbent, better known as the Bishop of Willesden, said that he gave them seven years and then they would start itching. Not very Christian, so some people said.

Public ooos and aahs have only just started. My hope that they get married in the Spring rather than the Summer has been realised. At least we do not have to endure more of the wedding build up than absolutely necessary.

It’s going to be a long few months regardless.

And we love the fact that they are getting married on the same day that Eva Braun married her ‘beau’.

So Wills and commoner Kate have decided to go the way of monogamy after eight years or so of courtship.

Courtship – what a peculiar phrase that is. Courting favour? Courting lust?

All people entering into marriage should think long and hard about what they are actually doing. This is allegedly a life-long commitment to one another, forsaking all others and remaining faithful as long as ye both shall live.

Can someone in their twenties really make that commitment when they have yet to develop and fully evolve as a human being? I’m not sure they can. All they can realistically do is live in the moment, believe that there is trust and hope that a relationship can withstand the day to day pressures of life, the making of babies and nurturing of a family and understand the notion that people are like sand; constantly moving, always developing and changing, never stagnating – hopefully.

So Charlie Boy is probably wrong, as ever. They have taken their time and I suppose they have considered this monumental decision but then again, isn’t this all about expectation and custom? Even though we all know that Wills and Kate have clearly had sex with one another, there is the expectation that those who hold high office, or are part of The Family Firm, should be married and not merely living together. Apparently, that marriage vow makes someone respectable, virtuous, honest.

Ed Miliband is the leader of the Labour Party and there are some that are pressurising him to stick a ring on his partner’s finger for the good of the party, to make him a more respectable leader. I hope he sticks his fingers up to such a suggestion, prominently and vociferously, showing quite clearly that a commitment to another human being does not have to be accompanied with a band of gold and such a commitment will not make him a better leader.

But let us return to the happy couple of the moment. Let us consider what is happening and what is going to happen to their relationship or what could happen to their relationship if they were the enlightened folk that we would like to be head of our nation (and let us ignore the fact that there are many of us who have more republican tendencies and find it all abhorrent that this family has such a privilege).

On the radio the other day, people were discussing fidelity and the fact that the Princes of Wales’s down the years have always had mistresses. This is a common factor for many of them, allegedly. In fact, all monarchs have had their flings as have their partners.

Edward the Seventh was a right randy whatsit. Lily Langtry was his most famous beau but he took lovers left, right and centre. The court of the time knew this. It was one of those open secrets in the post Victorian era.

The good queen herself obviously never had such dalliances, such was her commitment to her dead husband, but then there was the ‘weird’ relationship with Mr. John Brown. Apparently, they had adjoining bedrooms which some commented on saying that it was “contrary to etiquette and even decency”.

Edward’s son, George V also probably had affairs, maybe to get away from the stringency of the matriarch figure that was his wife.

Here’s the really strange thing. People have commented on all the ‘affairs’ that Edward the Eighth had before he married Mrs. Simpson. Surely he was the mistress! Can you have an affair if you are not married? Or is it just an improper relationship?

According to the person on the radio, only George VI and his daughter, our present queen, has remained faithful to one partner, though obviously the Queen’s consort has played away too, allegedly, though we are not allowed to know this because the thirty year rule of disclosure is censured about those members of the royal family who still live. Madness.

We all know the lurid stories of tampons and Prince Charles’s extra-marital bonking. Some might say that at least he was consistent, and stuck with his lover for decades; finally marrying the person that some thought he should have married in the first place. His commitment to Camilla clearly did not warrant a ring on the finger for many a year.

So it looks as though there is a custom, a trend. It looks as though the Firm has resolutely ignored the sanctity of marriage for generations.

Now the Royal Family survive because of tradition. Those who argue for the constitutional monarchy state that they bring in the crowds and generate a huge income for the country in royal tourism, probably not as much as us taxpayers pay but nobody seems to discuss that properly.

So if we accept this argument, perhaps we should also stick to other royal traditions, i.e. that the heir to the throne can get married and play the pomp and ceremony games but they should also be free to dangle their bits wherever they want.

Only of course, I would never suggest such a thing.

But in all seriousness, perhaps William and Katherine, as we now have to call her (I so wish she had been called Kelly or Tracy), should consider this infidelity question now and have a more enlightened approach to their marriage, keeping all customs going and introducing a few new ones.

In the name of equality, Wills should suggest that if he is free to have his dalliances then so should Kate be free to do what she wants, should the temptation come her way. She’s a good looking girl, in her way, and I am sure that there will be plenty of gorgeous men looking her way in the hope of bedding the future queen of England. It could be quite fun for the girl!

Seriously though, wouldn’t it be wonderful if William and Kate decided to have marriage vows that did not include the lie “forsaking all others”? Wouldn’t it be brilliant if they could explain on a Panorama programme that they are completely committed to one another but they do not rule out sexual relationships with others because there is a difference between intimacy with one and having sex with another? Wouldn’t it be splendiferous if they said that they were both young and did not know what life was going to throw at them, and that although they are committed to procreation and continuing the family line, they might also want to have a more liberal and free relationship with one another that enabled them to grow in all manner of ways, for the benefit of themselves and their subjects, who would benefit from the liberty that they allowed themselves?

It just makes one think that there are possibilities but in this nation of prudish and hypocritical behaviour around sex, the marriage of these two people will conform to the anarchic customs of royal traditions, where expectations of fidelity are borne out, and in a misogynist way, if Wills decides to play away, then that is also traditionally acceptable.

This wouldn’t happen in France. As it was in Edward VII’s time, the public acknowledge that Sarkozy and his wife are not likely to be faithful unto one another. There are other people in the marriage, not three as Diana famously said but four or maybe more.

Nobody bats an eyelid. French society has not disintegrated into anarchy because their leader has sex with more than one person. The presidency is not undermined. Mitterand’s mistress was at his graveside with his wife when they put him in the ground, and nobody really gave a damn.

I’m not suggesting that this has to be the way. If William and Kate want to have a life of committed monogamy, then so be it. It suits some people.

But if they did decide that they wanted other relationships, then I hope that it can be agreed between them. I hope that there is enough honesty in their forthcoming marriage where they can say to one another, “I find this person attractive” and have a talk about what having sex with that third party would actually mean.

And I mean this for both of them, not just the male in the relationship.

More and more women are finding opportunity and desire to have relationships outside a marriage.

I suppose that I should stop talking now in case I am sent to the tower. I am not suggesting that this marriage cannot work. In fact, it is more likely to succeed because they did not rush into this decision. However, I am merely pointing out that they should be mindful of the fact that even in the most traditional of places, there are hidden customs and there are desires and that honesty with one another is far more important than sexual fidelity.

But of course, that is only my opinion, and practicing the preaching is far more difficult.