an orgasm in every pot?
January 25, 2003 10:42 PM   Subscribe

"Documenting the orgasm": An interview with Annie Sprinkle : "I have a vision for the future where all the necessary sex education will be available for everyone; there will be no more need for abortion, no more sexually transmitted diseases. No one will ever go hungry for sex because there will be sex kitchens all over town serving sex instead of soup."
posted by troutfishing (30 comments total)

 
Why aren't there more people like Annie Sprinkle? I have read some things written by and/or about her, and she just makes so much darn sense. Great post trout!
posted by Quartermass at 11:13 PM on January 25, 2003


Prostitute, porn personage, and po-mo pontificator with a peculiar relationship with the Empire State Building. Now she's Nostradamus?

When do we get post-Postmodern?
posted by hama7 at 11:15 PM on January 25, 2003


Quartermass - I never saw her act (too much of a prude at the time) but I heard that she used to go on stage an insert a speculum in her vagina to ennable a better look....

Hama7 - Does post-Postmodernism=George W. Bush? Anyhoo, why not just post the text you linked to? here it is!

Post-porn queen Annie has sucked enough cocks to equal the height of the Empire State Building. Her experience in the porn industry led to a psychological awakening defining her self conception as a "sacred whore" in the male paradigm world of sex. Around 1993 she did a wildly popular sex performance art tour across America. This pervert was there doing photography and video.
(We may have more details on Annie later.)


Exam quiz: how many *expletive deleted*'s is that?
posted by troutfishing at 11:28 PM on January 25, 2003


There are sex kitchens, whether legal or not, all over town serving sex instead of soup. Regardless, many people go hungry for sex still. That's the thing about sex, it's not just the physical act, it's the knowledge that someone was attracted to you enough that they wanted to have sex with you. I don't have that same psychological issue with soup. I don't worry, for example, when I go out to dinner, if the chef would still be making me this soup if I wasn't paying him to do it. To stretch the analogy further, in my particular case, knowing that the chef was only "making me soup" because I was paying for it, would actually prevent me from being able to "eat the soup" if you follow my drift.

On a related note, no amount of sex education will ever eliminate unwanted pregnancy and/or std's. The number of pregnant young women who didn't realize what activity led them to that state is not very high; sex is frequently about the here & the now, and only occasionally is it about the what if and the maybe we should...
posted by jonson at 12:20 AM on January 26, 2003


Monkeys wank compulsively in their cages.

Focussing all one's energies on the contemplation of and act of sex is like focussing all your energies on anything else, really: a little pathetic and, ultimately, limiting.

I have a vision for the future, too, but 'sex kitchens' aren't part of it. I reckon Annie is a huckster, drawing the rubes in with the old bait and switch. When the bait is something that so many are so obsessive about, it's no surprise she has an audience.

See also : camwhores.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:45 AM on January 26, 2003


When do we get post-Postmodern?

Wait a minute...I've got the handbook right here...um, lessee, it says, "whenever you want it, and by whatever name you want to call it, so long as everyone agrees that it's a bad idea".
posted by Opus Dark at 2:06 AM on January 26, 2003


Well, from personal experience. My times of being erotic, sensual, sexual, and loving with a lover are the most blissful, beautiful, spiritual, healing moments I experience in my life. Plus when I got into prostitution, it wasn't at all like it was in the movies.

me votes-huckster.
the old bait and switch ? what is that ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:45 AM on January 26, 2003


I like Annie, but I think she's a bit loopy regarding her thoughts on orgasms lately.

Yes, it would be nice if all guys could have extended orgasms if they wished to, and some women might find it interesting to ejaculate... but suggesting that reversed sex roles *should* be the norm while both are still a scientifically questionable exception strikes me as very flawed logic.

(i.e. I'm not convinced yet that guys experiencing extended orgasms aren't just playing mindgames with themselves and that women who ejaculate aren't just wetting the bed.)

It would be interesting to hear Pat Califia's take on these ideas. Pat was always far more dedicated to logic and rational thought than other sexologists, and I wish we heard more from Pat lately, because there is a real need for intelligent, smart, sassy sexologists who value the truth more than new age, intellectually lazy theories. There may be some truth to those new age theories, admittedly... but that truth should be proven scientifically.

It does, however, argue that maybe Freud was on to something with that penis envy thing -- someone should get Annie a turkey baster for Christmas. Failing that, she may want to do what Pat did and get a sex change operation.

I welcome female ejaculations in my bedroom, so long as they are first shown to be something other than a loss of bladder control... I have satin sheets, not rubber, thankyouverymuch.
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:00 AM on January 26, 2003


jonson- "No-Soup-For-You!!"
posted by pekar wood at 6:22 AM on January 26, 2003


insomnia_lj I am sorry it has not been your experience....All I can say is have faith "it" exists....
posted by SweetIceT at 7:17 AM on January 26, 2003


Exam quiz: how many *expletive deleted*'s is that?

Height of Empire State Building / Average length
1250 feet / 6 inches = 2500
posted by Frank Grimes at 8:16 AM on January 26, 2003


Frank - thanks. I was too lazy to look it and up do the math. Now, for a pop quiz: how much sperm would that be, in gallons, or liters?
posted by troutfishing at 8:50 AM on January 26, 2003


I am always perplexed by the contradiction at the heart of people like Annie Sprinkle. Do whatever you want, with whoever you want, but make sure you do it with rubber gloves, condoms, dental dams, and a proper sociopolitical orientation ... and call that somehow healthy, organic, and natural.

Have they given any thought that commitment and monogamy are actually a possible solution -- that some of the old rules are actually better than the new?
posted by MattD at 9:09 AM on January 26, 2003


Why does the statement "whatever you want, with whomever you want" preclude that MattD. If you want to do that with only one person then that is your perogative as well. I say just live and let live as long as no one is hurt and everyone is being as careful as possible of course.
posted by SweetIceT at 9:20 AM on January 26, 2003


"That's the thing about sex, it's not just the physical act, it's the knowledge that someone was attracted to you enough that they wanted to have sex with you."

Well said, but there's a kind of self-deception in that attitude I think. If I use my own feelings of sexual attraction as a guage for what I want in other people all sorts of bad attitudes pop out in relief (narcissism for one). Someone else's lust can't really make me feel better about myself. We can't live up to each other's projections of desire either but we can fool ourselves to a remarkable extent.

Annie Sprinkle and most all of the rest of the sexologists I've ever seen are just "morality porn". And I expect most of the preaching is being done to choirs of various persuasions who want to hear their feelings/lifestyles validated. After all that's pretty much what morality porn of the more traditional, sunday-morning variety does for its crowd (see above re: desire, projection, self-deception).

Here's what intrigues me about the "sex kitchen" idea. It's just what jonson mentions, that the people are doing it to make a buck and probably feel about their customers much like I do about mine. There's nothing "spiritual" about it. There's a few I like because they are cool people. There are the great masses I feel very little about. And there are those I despise even though and because I'm the only one they can work with. Lots of times there's no self-deception about this at all. Hardly anyone mistakes professional courtesy for anything more than what it is. And if I ever felt the need for the service I would try my best to be one of the cool customers but I wouldn't, shouldn't, and mostly couldn't expect anything other than professional courtesy for the service.

If honesty is a virture and lying a sin then singles bars should be condemned and brothels tolerated better. But the more I work through my own feelings about what I want the more I find myself in strong favor of long term monogamous relationship. If everything was simple and I was King...
posted by wobh at 9:24 AM on January 26, 2003


Am I the only one who read this and thought "soma"?

The crowd circled around, chanting "orgy-porgy, orgy-porgy, orgy-porgy"...
posted by Kevs at 10:04 AM on January 26, 2003


My objection to this is in the categorizing of sex as a product, and the experience of sex as consumption. Modelling something as complicated on people's sex lives on the idea of a physical exchange--and nothing more--isn't going to get you very far when it comes to the realities and difficulties of actual erotic practices between human beings... not to mention that at least for me, the soup analogy fails miserably: too reductive, too silly. Sexual hunger is often hunger of different sorts--lonliness, primarily. There are number of women (and men) in my town who do a roaring business accomodating the hungry is this way, and I haven't noticed a corresponding rise in general fulfillment...
posted by jokeefe at 12:24 PM on January 26, 2003


"No one will ever go hungry for sex because there will be sex kitchens all over town serving sex instead of soup"

Rather than stand in line and wait to be served, I'll stay home and cook for myself, thanks.

That way I'm sure I'll get exactly what I want, I'll get it in a perfectly-sized portion, and I know I won't come down with food poisoning.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:32 PM on January 26, 2003


Quoting at length from your own book seems sort of cheap in a one-page interview. I have seen Sprinkle in Seattle [while she was fully dressed, on a panel talking about sex literature, I think] and she came off as sort of flakey and willfully naive about what it would take to make this country authentically more sex-positive.

I mean, it's not just about people getting over hangups and having more and better sex, it's about many people learning to tolerate a lot of alternative sexualities [including the "I'll just stay home with my hand, thanks" versions]. When Sprinkle was questioned about some of the the current problems in the sex industry [less than consensual sex, kiddie porn, etc] her basic response was "I don't want to talk about that, let's talk about GOOD sex...." Not like she needs to have an answer to everything but I think that the jump from everyone having a lot of orgasms to a world free of violence and rape is a pretty big one. It just smacks too much of that "all you need is a good fuck" rhetoric. The problem is not just one of information and accessibility.
posted by jessamyn at 1:20 PM on January 26, 2003


SweetIceT -
I *know* there are different ways people can experience something like an orgasm without ejaculation, but I'm not certain that it can or should be called an orgasm. It may be something else entirely... The physiology of it really needs to be defined far better than it currently has been.

Likewise, I suspect that there is something going on that causes some women to ejaculate and that may perhaps be learned by other women, but very little is really known about the cause and no truely scientfic work has been done that shows what is being ejaculated and where it comes from.

Even some of the most scientific-minded sex 'experts' seem to give their theories undue weight, so it is entirely possible that a lot of them are just reinforcing that which they would like to believe. That's especially useless when it comes to sexuality, a field where one size clearly does not fit all.
posted by insomnia_lj at 2:10 PM on January 26, 2003


oh please someone tell me what the bait and switch is?
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:52 PM on January 26, 2003


insomnia_lj>> lets just put it this way..."I" do not need scientific proof....
posted by SweetIceT at 3:16 PM on January 26, 2003


sgt. serenity: "bait and switch" is a tactic used by salespeople in which they use one product or deal to get you in the door, then make that product or deal unavailable so you have to buy something more expensive. (a better explanation)
posted by swerve at 3:59 PM on January 26, 2003


Sex kitchens? Now I'll buy THAT for a dollar!
posted by timyang at 4:39 PM on January 26, 2003


I'll have the soup.
posted by Vidiot at 4:43 PM on January 26, 2003


Reality check: we have people dressing black suit preaching things written a couple thousand years ago, telling you castity is good, unless there's a children involved and they're in the game.

We have so many people that don't know how to use their genitals or are afraid of meeting people that would like to share theirs , we prolly could use some SexEd Tv channel anytime.

We have the porn industry, capitalizing on the prurients, that so badly needs sex as something forbidden,dirty,shocking,hip,amazing (and low cost) that the day sex wll become as boring as drinking water, they'll declare sex inconstitutional and start an holy crusade.

Guess we need an evolution of brain structure beforw opening Sextaurants (but the japanese guys and girls are a step ahead, check this love hotel automatic dildo dispenser)
posted by elpapacito at 4:48 PM on January 26, 2003


Height of Empire State Building / Average length
1250 feet / 6 inches = 2500


...or 2000 European.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 10:28 PM on January 26, 2003


I....did..not...have sex with that woman! I just couldn't resist her big juicy quote, that's all
posted by troutfishing at 7:00 AM on January 27, 2003


Have they given any thought that commitment and monogamy are actually a possible solution -- that some of the old rules are actually better than the new?

a handful of questions: a solution for whom, everyone? if one wants to have sex and can do safely, is there any reason why they shouldn't? and do you reckon monogamy is any more healthy, organic, and natural than premarital sex?
posted by mcsweetie at 7:36 AM on January 27, 2003


The difference between a soup kitchen and a "sex kitchen" is that people need to eat. They do not need to fuck. Not having sex might make you cranky, but not eating will make you dead. The idea that people can't or won't or shouldn't learn to keep it in their pants but should instead be able to indulge their desires whenever they feel like it is faintly repulsive to me. Once you're able to do that, it's a short leap to thinking that you have a right to sex.
posted by kindall at 10:54 AM on January 27, 2003


« Older vw   |   Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Mouse? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments