Opinion: An Essential Part of a Straight Man’s Guide to Hotter Sex

Quickies and loving couples who occasionally like to “make fuck” aside (as compared to “making love”): for some guys it’s going to boil down to understanding the difference between a quick-and-dirty come-on — versus a bit more teasing, cat-and-mouse. However, there’s a little bit of ca-ca to step around first.

Sex ed colleague (and longtime friend) Dr. Charlie Glickman has a must-read post up right now called The Most Important Thing That Men Who Have Sex With Women Need to Know. It’s an elaboration on a “groping vs. cuddling” point made in articles by a Fox News sex writer, but Glickman mines nuggets of practical wisdom for guys about initiating sex with girls.

Let me be absolutely clear: I’m not in agreement with the post’s intro where he explains, but still excuses, the awful generalizations by Fox News writer Logan Levkoff. I think Levkoff is not forced by anyone to use lame sexual stereotypes (I should know, I write for conservative mainstream media outlets about sex) and that she needs to step up herself and be responsible about using tired and insulting titles like “5 Ways to Get Your Wife to Have More Sex With You,” which calls men whiners who need to grow up. Ugh. No. Stop it. Really. Please: no more articles about sex that insult male readers, while promising to tell these guys how to “get” women to do something sexual. This is a problem. We who work the front lines of the sex-positive sex ed movement have been trying to undo the damage of this exact mindset for decades. It is like talking to your readers about movies as if they only have VCRs. While we’re on the topic of Fox on Sex, take Ian Kerner’s misleading ‘evils of pornography’ article with this female-authored “how to trick your women” stereotype back to wherever you go to stand in line with Hannity to stuff tired old tropes into Rupert Murdoch’s gaping Fox-hole. But the way Charlie explains what is at the heart of something cavalier Levkoff stated (about the way men relate to womens’ sexuality when it’s time to get it on), is riveting.

Anyway: what Charlie wrote is golden for straight guys. I want all my straight-guy friends to read it. Here’s a snip from the middle of Dr. Glickman’s great article, which gets to the point on what I think a lot of guys miss — and some key things to understand about sex with girls that could really unlock making hot sex happen. It’s just a *bit* more sophisticated than “how to get her to have more sex with you.” Which means it’s sage advice for guys who don’t believe everything they read about initiating sex with women from the “tricks” promised in Fox News. (Double entendre intended.) Snip:

(…) Logan also touched on a raw nerve when she wrote:

Snuggle, Don’t Grope. You’re in the mood, so you reach out and grab us—our breasts, butt, or genitals, that is. Guys, believe me when I tell you that this is the biggest sin you can commit when trying to seduce a woman. It will not send us into an orgasmic swoon. (And, hey, if it does, you don’t need my advice, right?). Neither will groping us in the kitchen while we’re unloading the dishwasher.

Of course, for some folks, the occasional grope or grab can lead to a hot and fun quickie. But what most men don’t realize is that all women in our society are on the receiving end of unwanted sexual attention at some point in their lives, and most of them get it a lot. Women are catcalled on the street. They’re harassed in bars, groped in clubs, and whistled at in the grocery store. They’re told that they need to be sexy to be valued and then they’re attacked as sluts. Simply put, women put up with sexual intrusion for most of their lives, in big ways and small. It happens everywhere and most men have no idea how much of an impact it has.

I’ve heard quite a few men say that women should just take it as a compliment. Ironically, these are often the same guys who lose it if a man cruises them, winks at them, or simply appears to be sexually interested in them. Seems like a double standard to me. Until and unless men wrap their brains around what that’s like for the women in their lives, they’re not going to understand why their girlfriends, wives, and partners often get annoyed by being groped. (…read more, charlieglickman.com)

Image from this Explicite Art gallery (explicit, for certain).

Share This Post


  1. Violet:

    I like the article, and I have to comment on the “grabs in front of the dishwasher…”

    I think the issue depends on who is used to being the sexual object or the object of sexual desire. I recall a relationship when my “other” wanted sex all the time. She would grab, touch, and kiss often-as if it was some reward/toy for her.

    In a different relationship, I have felt “out of control” and wanted to hold, grab, and kiss her.

    In each relationship, I have felt differently about the attention… While women generally are the objects of sexual attention these days (at least the open “in your face” variety), I can understand that a quick grab might not do much.

    However, I don’t understand why a woman would be with a man if she didn’t, even once, want to just grab him every once in a while–whether in front of the dishwasher or not…

  2. Logan,

    Right on. I know we’re all working toward the same goal. And as a result of this comment conversation, do know that when you and I do have intersecting agreement, I’ll work that much harder to have it heard and read. You have no idea how much your transparency means, and your willingness to truly engage here about your passion — it means a lot. I may be a critic for you in this instance, but I do intend to be an ally.

    Plus, I love women who handle and transform criticism into a balanced discussion with strength and grace.

  3. Violet,

    We can certainly disagree on how this piece may be interpreted, its mission, or its success. When we put out information it is always up for criticism, especially on the web. While I still stand by my original article and the follow up on Huffington Post which further contextualized the brief conversation on FN, I want to be transparent. I appear on and write for many MSM outlets, including Fox News. In fact, I love the heated debates I have had there. But I have never been paid by Fox News, nor do I have any contractual relationship with them. Is my name linked with theirs in perpetuity? Sure, but I think that my body of work on air and off can hold its own. This original piece was written for Good in Bed. I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t think it’s that simple. That being said, what I love most about being in this field is that we have an ability to initiate larger dialogues about sexuality, gender, and relationships. We may not always agree, but it feels good that we can all have a voice.

  4. Hi Logan, thanks for commenting. I’m glad you understand why your content is upsetting when you do not contextualize it as you have in this comment. I appreciate that you took the time to do so, though it’s unfortunate that your Fox audience doesn’t get to see that.

    From one MSM sex writer to another, I can tell you It’s really not necessary to “adequately explore all the intricacies about gender and sexuality in 500 words” in order to frame your snark with sex-positivity. Also, after my time as a Gawker editor, I know there is a big difference between constructive and funny (effective) snark, and snark that cuts and alienates. However, that’s why the title of this post has the word “opinion” in it. Keep in mind, and read carefully, that I never accused you of malicious intent. I accused you of carelessness and irresponsible behavior in a mainstream media platform.

    I’m not sure what assumptions you’re saying that I’ve made about you. Except that you are affiliated with Fox News, and despite your disclaimer in this comment, I need to explain to you that you are indeed affiliated with Fox News. You are a brand (writer) who has chosen through contractual means to publicly affiliate and align your brand with Fox News as an entity that is published by (whose message is endorsed by) Fox News. I have done the same with CNN, the SF Chon and others, and even if I never write for these conservative MSM outlets again, my work and name live on in legacy there. For better or for worse, and my Violet Blue brand is affiliated with those brands (just as they have made a formal public business agreement – publishing – to affiliate with mine). That’s business.

    As for getting to know you, thank you for the invitation. But I’m just like everyone else who is “getting to know you” by way of your Fox News work. And now, though your commenting. Thanks again for making this into a conversation by taking the time out to leave a comment. It’s helpful.

  5. Violet,
    I can understand why you’re frustrated with my original post. It’s a fair call. I don’t believe in stereotypes, however, the piece was supposed to be snarky. And it was a commentary in response to what women have been asking me to talk about. My HuffPost response to the criticism answers this. The fact is there is no way to adequately explore all the intricacies about gender and sexuality in 500 words. And I can assure you that if I was doing so it wouldn’t be on Fox News. This was a playful piece for a particular audience. Charlie is well aware of the work that I do and wouldn’t be “excusing” me if he thought that my intention was malicious. That being said, let me make one thing clear. I am by no means affiliated with Fox News. My column was written for someone else and syndicated by FN. (If you really want to see “me” on Fox News, feel free to watch my debate on kindergarten sex ed with them — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y5VOHXvez4&feature=channel . Don’t get me wrong. I think that you make fair points. But you should probably get to know me first before you make assumptions about me.

Post Comment