Pete and Samantha's Guide to Sex in the Summertime - 2012

by Peter Birch

  People with an armpit fetish might enjoy clean fresh armpits or more strongly smelling unwashed ones but it is unusual for people to enjoy the smell or taste of chemical deodorant (it’s probably not very good for you to ingest either), so if you or your partner wish to indulge in this interest, its best to leave the Lynx/Axe in the bathroom cabinet.

  Men and women with armpit fetishes often state that it is the strong masculine or feminine scent that attracts them to this area of the body. The apocrine glands are located in the armpits and pubis and are the sweat glands that are most active in emotional or stressful situations. It is possible that without realising it, we may pick up chemical information from the secretions in these areas that increases our sexual attraction to our chosen partner.

  The armpit fetish is a comparatively safe fetish and may be indulged in by smelling, touching, viewing, kissing or licking a partners armpit (or in-fact having a partner do this to your own armpit) Provided the partner is clean and if you are using your mouth they have not used any toxic sprays or creams in that area that you could ingest, there are no real safety concerns to worry about.

  If you are a secret armpit fetishist and are not sure how to approach your partner about it, try snuggling into their chest one evening then turning your face a little towards the armpit and complimenting them on how great they smell. Many people are self-conscious about body odour, as we are used to a continual bombardment of advertising campaigns telling us to disguise and prevent any hint of body odour at all costs, so be reassuring. If you would rather your partner didn’t wear deodorant let them know that you love their natural smell more than you could like any synthetic spray. Once they are convinced your appreciation is genuine, it may be easier to raise the topic.

  Hair or no hair? That is entirely up to you, some people like hairy pits on men or women, some people prefer clean shaven, women particularly are taught shaving clean is preferable. Keep in mind that only you and perhaps your partner should get a say in how you look. Love your body and make it work for you.

  So go ahead, make the most of the summer heat and use the excuse to work up even more of a sweat in the bedroom!

  Sneaky Peeks - Voyeurism, And Where To Draw The Line?

  Which would you enjoy more, a strip show or a stolen glimpse of whatever it is that takes your fancy?

  The obvious answer is a strip show: watching an attractive man or woman go slowly naked to the urgent throb of music while you’re comfortably seated and perhaps sipping a cool drink. Not for me.

  I suppose there must come a point at which the strip show is so extravagant and so compelling that it comes out on top, but it would have to involve at least half-a-dozen beautiful girls in a perfectly choreographed routine from fully dressed to stark naked in order to trump a brief flash of plain white panties on a windy day. Or maybe not.

  Perhaps I’m a little jaded, after a lifetime in erotica, but even as a desperately horny and unfulfilled teenager I’d have made the same choice. Maybe it’s my very British background, but when it comes to sex a key word for me is “naughty”, and there’s nothing naughty about watching a woman take her clothes off when that’s what she’s been paid to do, let alone when I’m paying for the privilege. With that, all the mystery, all the magic, is gone. I’d far rather watch the same woman when she’s out shopping in a pair of tight jeans.

  It’s a familiar scenario, the thrill of the forbidden fruit, when the excitement is as much or more in the chase, the expectation, the surprise, the risk, as it is in what you actually get at the end. That’s why for me, voyeurism has been a lifetime’s pleasure, and I’m certainly not alone. In fact, judging by some of the stuff you can find on the net I have rather a mild case, and while I’d never claim to hold especially high moral values, compared to some I’m a veritable saint. There are things I wouldn’t do, and there are things I’d defend my right to do, but voyeurism is inherently intrusive and I wouldn’t expect everybody to agree with my decision on where to draw the line. That’s a personal choice, bit it’s one that needs to be made.

  The trouble with forbidden fruit of the voyeuristic sort is that sometimes it is actually forbidden, by law, so the decision may come down to the local police rather than your conscience. Otherwise, what is and is not acceptable depends on subtle interaction between numerous factors, a classically human situation. For example, I can go to a life drawing class and spend an hour or two making an exact study of a model’s naked body, but people looking in at the window are likely to cause offence. The difference is that the model has agreed to be nude for certain people and for a certain purpose, which is his or her choice and therefore consenting, but not for other people, or, probably, for purposes of sexual gratification. All very well, so far, but what if one of the students finds themselves aroused at the end of the session: should they condemn themselves for what is, after all, a natural reaction? Or should they only be condemned if they arrive knowing they will become aroused? Then there’s a sadly all too common feature of nude modelling, when a model comes to feel exploited and that each stroke of the brush or click of the camera button is taking something from them. Should the student then feel guilty in retrospect? Meanwhile, some people consider nudity offensive in any situation, so should both model and students be condemned? Or, at the other extreme, is it ridiculously precious for the model to object to somebody looking in at the window to have a good perve over their naked body, especially when there are really appalling things going on in the world all around us?

  So it goes on, back and forth, an argument potentially without end. So what’s good, and what’s not? No one individual can answer that, and I certainly don’t intend to attempt to impose my own moral values on others. What I would like to do is give people a chance to think about the subject, so let’s take a range of scenarios and a range of people for a snapshot survey. We have myself, Peter: male, 50, and very British, or so I’m told, and Samantha: female, 25, also British. Others can be introduced as we go along.

  All the pictures except the big group scene were set up, but were assessed as if taken without the subject’s knowledge.

  Picture No 1 is of a group of professional models at a store launch in central London, taken in-between posed shots. I’m perfectly fine with this, as they were paid to be there and to be photographed. Samantha feels that it is technically a breach of consent as they weren’t given a chance to pose, but that there was a reasonable expectation pictures would be taken in that time frame. None of those we asked had any objections except Dan, a 21 year-old student, who argued that it is inherently wrong to take erotic pleasure in any view not given with full, informed consent, but this style of photo seems to be generally considered acceptable. No doubt there are also people who would see the situation as exploitative.

  Picture No 2 is of a large, mixed group out enjoying the sunshine beside a lake. As the photographer, I was aware that some might have taken offence, and might even have done so had I walked past without a camera, because I was fully clothed and obviously not part of their social set. I agree with Samantha, who says that it’s not strictly ethical but the people are lightly clothed in a public space and should be aware that partial nudity in a public place could be viewed as erotic. No doubt they could argue that they’re dressed for the sun and for swimming, not for the entertainment of random voyeurs. On the other hand, I could argue that if you put yourself on display in a public place you cannot choose who looks at you or dictate their reaction. James, 56 and a farmer, said “I’d say that if this was a group I was with then it’s fine, if I had a connection with them, fine, but I’d just taken the picture to post online as “look at this bunch of chavs” it would be unkind but not really voyeurism. Mark, 71 and a writer, argues that the beautiful have a duty to allow others the appreciation of their bodies and sees nothing wrong in this situation, nor in taking photographs.

  Picture No 3 is of a young woman out walking in the park, dre
ssed in ordinary day to day clothes and minding her own business. Rather to my surprise, this one was the most contentious, with a wide division of opinions. Personally I feel it’s a little sneaky but harmless, while James pointed out the way Pippa Middleton’s rear view was splashed across the national papers and so argues that this sort of picture is so widely acceptable that it hardly counts as voyeurism at all. Vérène, 38, a Swiss artist, said that while she personally would have been happy taking the picture she knew women who’d been annoyed at having similar pictures posted online. François, 51 and an academic, reflected this opinion, arguing that there’s nothing wrong in taking a picture without the subject’s knowledge, but that it would be immoral to publish the picture without the subject’s consent.

  Jessica, a 31 year-old nutritionist, felt ambivalent, stating “it probably is justified, even though I don’t like it. This is the one that I have most trouble with and find difficult personally, because it just seems a bit sneaky, but whilst I might not be too keen on the idea of someone papping my arse when I’m out and about, the reality is that in public and fully clothed you’re on view all the time.” Samantha was more critical and said “I feel that women suffer from sexual attention from men to the point of it becoming so normal to them that it is a stress that they don’t even consciously register. A woman leaving the house in ‘normal’ clothing should not have to be the object of the projections of men. A woman should not have to feel that leaving the house in anything less modest than a burka could make her open to having covert pictures taken of her. She has done nothing to invite or consent to this kind of attention, therefore it is a violation of consent.”

  There seems to be something of a gender split here, in that while women generally feel they should be able to dress as they please without it being considered sexual, within reason, men usually consider that any clothing that displays the figure is inherently designed to send out sexual signals and that they are going to react accordingly, again within reason.

  Picture No 4 is of a girl sunbathing naked outdoors and brought up the point that voyeurism has a lot to do with context, the principle question being: did she have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Samantha said “It’s a difficult photo to comment on as it is unclear if it is a public space or a garden and it is unclear if the photographer is concealed or not. If it was a private garden and the photographer was concealed it would bother me a lot, but if it is a case of intentional public nudity it could still be a violation of consent, but stripping in a public place has its risks and people need to be realistic about the response random strangers are going to have to that!”

  This one also raised the question of how a viewer interprets a picture. Samantha said “The woman appears to be able to see the camera and seems relaxed.” but Jessica said “You snuck up on a chick having a private sunbathe, you bad man!”, while Vérène pointed out that the context suggests that the woman sunbathing might be a sister, daughter or mother to the photographer, thus breaking a major social taboo.

  I had expected this one to be considered unacceptable by most people, but in practise it seems to be that if you strip outdoors, you take a risk of being seen and possibly photographed.

  Picture No 5 is of a girl undressing for a bath, in private except that she has left the door open. Jessica said this made the photographer a Peeping Tom and there was broad agreement that the open door was no excuse for looking in, let along taking a photograph. She is indoors, about to take a bath, and therefore has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Vérène raised the question of why the photographer is there and Samantha the question of consent. Has she left the door open in the hope of being seen naked and perhaps even photographed, or to allow a friend to play voyeuristic games? We don’t know the answer, and nearly everybody felt the photograph was unacceptable and far more so if shared around, online or otherwise. The only exception was Mark, who felt that it would be unduly precious of the girl to resent being photographed when she’d left the door wide open.

  Picture No 6 is of a girl asleep on her bed, blissfully unaware of how much she’s showing, let alone that anybody is taking a photograph. This caused some strong reactions, but there was little disagreement. Samantha said “If the person taking the picture is the boyfriend of the girl sleeping and is aware it is not likely to offend her, that she is happy with him seeing her naked and he is not going to share the picture it is probably less awful than if it was taken by a creepy flatmate who snuck into her room.” Jessica was more adamant still, “No! This is well explicit and she’s asleep, outrageous perversion! Even if it’s your girlfriend and you show her after, no!” while James said “Well beyond the limit, and if her brother, husband or father hunted the voyeur down and beat the picture out of him I’d not be surprised.”

  Clearly the image is unacceptable to the great majority of society, and yet a quick search of the internet will reveal plenty of similar examples, both fake and real, so let’s not pretend it doesn’t happen. There are plenty of people who enjoy this sort of highly intrusive voyeurism, and worse. Indeed, for many it’s clearly a case of the more intrusive, the better.

  A few interesting remarks came up in the course of discussion. Jessica said “We cannot police the eyes and I am being voyeuristic all the time when I sit and people watch in cafes.” and asked “Does it change things if you physically rather than mentally record people?”. Vérène feels that is does, and that all six images would be acceptable if drawn from memory rather than photographed, although this does need to be qualified by what the voyeur was doing there in the first place. Samantha asked a broader question based on the reaction to Picture 2, “Perhaps people feel that the girl in Picture 2 ‘deserves’ it the least due to her more modest attire? That raises the question: how modestly should a woman need to dress in order to feel she has done enough not to invite sexual attention?”

  How indeed? The answer lies in the reaction of the viewer, which can vary from utter indifference to a powerful sexual response, depending on culture, sex, age, personal morals and many other factors, yet the woman in a burka might also draw not just attention but abuse precisely because of the social implications of her choice. You can’t win.

  What I do think is clear is that when judging what is or is not acceptable in the way of voyeurism, a great many factors come into play: if an image is seen or recorded, and how it’s recorded; what is done with the image, how intrusive the image is, how intimate the image is, and the reaction of the viewer to the image, and most importantly, whether the subject has consented to the image being made. So if you are going to make a judgement, each situation has to be taken on its own merits, or lack of them.

  So how considerate should we be of other peoples sensibilities?

  If we take the line that mutual consent is essential for any sexual interaction whatsoever, then all six pictures are immoral, and so is an appreciative glance at an attractive person in the street. In that case I have to hold my hand up and admit that my morals are not perfect. I’ll look, but I’ll do my best not to do anything which might make somebody uncomfortable, let alone seem threatening. That’s a personal choice, which some will consider grossly insensitive and typical of arrogant male entitlement, but others will consider rather pathetic and spiritless. Again, you can’t win.

  So what to do? If there was a meaningful consensus in society, then we could follow that, but society is composed of dozen of cultures with often conflicting values and is changing all the time, while a lot of the “rules” are nonsensical. We have every newspaper in the country inviting us to admire Pippa Middleton’s rear view at the royal wedding, but try dropping in at the local church and taking photos of the bridesmaid’s bums. There is no universally acceptable solution, so one must find one’s own balance, but my own feelings are that if there is a lesson to be drawn from this, it is the value of mutual tolerance. On the one hand, don’t expect the entire world to revolve around your personal wants and needs, b
ut on the other, you can’t be expected to try and please everybody.

  Visible Excitement

  What would you do if you could be invisible for a day? It is one of those cliché dinner table topics people raise when they can’t think of anything better to say. A predictable question with predictable answers, involving changing rooms, the showers of favoured celebrities and so on and so forth. What people are imagining is the thrill of covert observation rather than access to the sight of naked flesh, which is as easy as the purchase of a magazine from a top shelf or if you are feeling flush, a lap dance. Myself, I never had much of an answer to the invisibility question. I have never had the desire to be hidden or secluded. I have always very much wanted to be seen, to feel the excited gaze of the Peeping Tom sweep over my skin, the hot flush of embarrassment over a dropped towel when awkwardly struggling to change discretely on the beach, the dirty thrill of being caught with a hand inside my knickers in an inappropriate place...

  Sadly to invite that kind of attention has its risks and while a young woman such as myself is less likely to be slapped with the label of ‘flasher’, the concern that an interested man might not content himself with merely looking is far too worrying a prospect for me to indulge these fantasies of mine. Instead I have contented myself with asking that clichéd question at dinner parties, imagining myself as the victim of these attentions, the unaware cheerleader soaping herself down after practice, the masturbating starlet oblivious to the gaze of the formless watcher at the foot of her bed... My first thought then, when one morning I looked into my bathroom mirror and realised I was not there, was that of all the people this should happen to, what a waste it should happen to me.