Since the g-spot was discovered in 1950 by German gynecologist Dr. Ernst Grafenberg it’s been the subject of studies, supposition, sex tips and dispute. In 1982, Beverly Whipple wrote the international bestseller The G Spot and Other Discoveries About Human Sexuality, giving the g-spot its name and newfound fame.

For years, Grafenberg and Whipple were taken at their word. Yes, women have a g-spot. It is a pleasure center and the source of vaginal (as opposed to clitoral) orgasms. But then researchers began poking around. Does the g-spot really exist?

The Finding of the G-Spot
Two years ago, The Journal of Sexual Medicine published the results of a study by an Italian research team that seemed to reveal  evidence of the g-spot’s existence. The researchers studied 20 women by means of a questionnaire and an ultrasound, and spotted a physiological difference between women who achieve vaginal orgasms and those who do not.

A media frenzy ensued. Magazine headlines read “How to find the g-spot!” Sales of specially-shaped g-spot vibrators spiked.

Women (and their partners) embarked on a quest more challenging than that of the Holy Grail. (Those who’ve read Dan Brown’s DaVinci Code know what an apt analogy that really is.) And women who, after much experimentation, still could not find their g-spot were left feeling somewhat inadequate. If only they had known…

What is the g-spot?
The g-spot is believed to be a quarter-sized (some say nickel-sized) spot of tissue about 1/3 of the way up the vaginal wall on the anterior side (toward the belly). Stimulation of this spot in some women leads to intense orgasms and, sometimes, female ejaculation.

Researchers at the University of L’Aquila found through ultrasound that women who experience vaginal orgasm are statistically more likely to have thicker tissue in this area of the vagina, lending credence to the existence of an actual, physical g-spot.

The Latest Findings
Not so, say the latest findings, also published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine.
Granted, the 2008 research was on flimsy ground. The  research group was too small.  The research methods were faulty.  The evidence was inconclusive.

The new study, which surveyed 902 sets of twins, discovered the g-spot actually does not exist…

Um. Come again?

Since identical twins are genetically identical, if one claimed to have a g-spot, the other would be likely to, as well. This was not the case. The survey findings, according to the researchers, suggest there is no genetic basis for the existence of the g-spot.

However, in the same study, 56 % of the women said they do, in fact, have a g-spot.  The researchers say environmental and psychological factors may contribute to certain women having intense orgasms when this area is stimulated.

Does it matter?
After the 2008 study was released, some women may have felt inadequate if they (or their lover) could not find their g-spot. This latest study may assuage those concerns. You can’t find it because it doesn’t exist.

But what about those of us who know, in fact, that Good Things happen when something (a finger, a vibrator…) stimulates that spot about 1 to 3 inches up in the vagina? Are we the crazy ones now?

It’s quite possible, as Greg Laden points out in his science blog, that the g-spot exists but has no basis in genetics. It could also mean that every woman does, in fact, have a g-spot but the 44 % of women who said they didn’t have one simply haven’t been able to find theirs.

While the most recent study uses a larger sampling than the 2008 study, the research methods still aren’t the most reliable. Sex educator Dr. Petra Boynton, in her blog “Where Have All the G-Spots Gone,” does  a wonderful job tearing apart the study, so I’ll let her have at it.

Meanwhile, my thoughts…

Don’t stop looking
Perhaps all women have this spot (sometimes thought to be urethral sponge) but not all women have the same response when it is stimulated. After all, every woman varies in what she likes. Some women don’t like direct clitoral stimulation. Other women can orgasm simply from having their nipples played with.

Even the same woman, on a different day, may enjoy different sexual pleasures. And the same thing that turned her on one night may be downright painful the next. (Sorry, guys… that’s what makes us so intriguing!)

If you’re in that percentage of women who has not yet found your g-spot, I encourage you to continue the hunt, regardless of what this week’s scientific study says.

Just don’t pursue your search at the expense of other sexual pleasures. After all, the more you explore your body, alone or with a lover, the more ways you will discover to orgasm.

And for those women who know beyond a doubt their g-spot exists, might I suggest buying it a special toy?

There’s one thing members of both major political parties agree on: The U.S. needs some type of health care reform. From there, though, opinions diverge wildly.

The 2,032-page bill introduced by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) outlines a national healthcare plan with some very good points. For instance, the bill:

• prevents insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions
• caps personal financial liability when someone faces a medical emergency
• prevents insurers from dropping people who become ill

Two of the key sticking points in the plan passed in November by the House of Representatives and now facing the Senate are – not surprisingly — sex education and abortion funding. The old adage rings true: in the end, it always comes around to sex.

Sex education, not abstinence teaching, supported
One provision of the bill, titled the “Healthy Teen Initiative to Prevent Teen Pregnancy,” supports taxpayer funding of sex education proven, through evidence-based research, to:

• delay sexual activity in teens;
• decrease the number of sexual partners;
• reduce teen pregnancy;
• reduce sexually transmitted infection rates; or
• improve rates of contraceptive use.

Abstinence-based programs, all the rage in many schools recently, will not be supported by tax dollars. According to some sources, the provision considers the abortion drug RU-486 as “contraception,” along with Plan B (the morning-after pill), IUDs, birth control pills and condoms.

Taxpayer-funded abortions nixed
While the conservative community may have lost the battle over sex education, an amendment to the bill barring federal funding for abortions, however, can be viewed as a conservative victory. In fact, it’s much more than that — it’s politicians listening to the majority of their constituents based on poll results.

A CNN poll showed that 61% of Americans (across all political parties) oppose using public funds to cover abortion. Thirty-seven percent are in favor of taxpayer-funded abortion. Slightly more than half believe all abortions should be paid for out of pocket, rather than through any insurance at all.

It’s interesting to note, however, that of respondents to a Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey, only 3 % cited abortion funding as a reason to oppose health care reform. Yet our legislators have turned this into a hot-button, make-or-break issue.

What do opponents really dislike about the bloated health care reform bill? The two highest-ranking responses, tied at 27 % each, were: “it’s too expensive” and “don’t want government involved in health care.”

When you consider the post office, Department of Motor Vehicles, Social Security and other government-regulated programs, it’s amazing the numbers for the latter response weren’t higher.

I firmly believe Americans need to take more responsibility for their health as a whole, in the form of healthy eating, frequent exercise, and common sense wellness care. But if I do get sick, I don’t want the government in charge of the tools that can assist me in healing. This firmly overrides any other issue relating to the health care reform bill, all of which seem to make sizzling headlines.

Health care reform good for LGBT Community
Too much government involvement aside, there are a few bright points to the legislation. One provision eliminates the hefty tax penalties non-married partners — a large percentage of which are gay or lesbian — face when they put their partner on their health insurance plan. As someone who lived with my (opposite sex) partner nearly seven years before we got married, this makes all sorts of sense to me. Marriage, again, should be a personal choice based on love, not economics.

Additionally, the bill prohibits discrimination in health care based on “personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.” This includes gender and sexual orientation.

Certain parts of health care reform are on the right track. But the question remains: Will the bill pass before 2009 ends?

I really wanted to broach the subject of STDs in Washington, D.C. with a tongue-in-cheek approach. (I’m not doing anything more fun with my tongue at the moment.) I had a whole series of bi-partisan jokes lined up, poking fun at political personalities from Clinton to Ted Kennedy to Elliot Spitzer…

Then I thought better of it. It’s really not a laughing matter. In fact, it’s pretty sad.

D.C. beats all 50 states for cases of Chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis
Our nation’s capital has a higher concentration of STDs than anywhere else in the U.S., according to a new report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Washington D.C. has higher rates of Chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis, with:

- 451.5 cases of gonorrhea per 100,000 people
- 24.8 cases of syphilis per 100,000 people; and
- 1,177 cases of Chlamydia per 100,000 people.

The Chlamydia rate in D.C. is nearly three times the rate of neighboring Virginia and Maryland.

Indicative of larger problems
It’s easy – almost cliché – to blame politicians with a penchant for interns and prostitutes, but the reality is, STD rates are higher in major cities across the U.S.

Other problems plaguing major urban areas also plague D.C. For instance, Washington D.C. also leads the pack in violent crime, and some statistics show that more than 14,000 people in our nation’s capital are homeless.

Sadly, these statistics don’t share any “breaking news.” They only drive home some obvious points:

- More sex education may help combat the spread of STDs.
- A better healthcare system can diagnose and treat individuals before they perpetuate more disease.
- How can we expect our politicians to serve an entire country when they can’t take care of problems right on their doorstep?

Teen girls also at risk
Nationwide, according to the CDC report, teen girls show the highest rates of  Chlamydia and gonorrhea, with more than 400,000 girls ages 15 – 19 infected with one or both of the STDs.

Left untreated, 10 to 20 % of these infections can result in pelvic inflammatory disease, which can cause chronic pelvic pain, ectopic pregnancies and infertility in women.

The prevalence of these STDs in teenage males was slightly lower – probably due to increased screening and diagnoses for teenage girls. Additionally, the long-term health risks for females who contract the disease are much worse than for men, in general. The U.S. population aged 15 to 24 years old, both male and female, are most at risk to contract STDs. The CDC report estimates approximately 19 million new STD infections each year, with almost half of those amongst people age 15 to 24.

Sex education, condom availability the keys
Educating high school and college students about the importance of safe sex can help combat the spread of STDs. At home, an open-door policy regarding discussions about sex with your teens can help.

It’s especially important for teenage girls to feel as if they can talk to their mothers about delicate sexual matters, as early diagnosis and treatment with antibiotics of common STDs can help prevent future health problems and infertility. Whether that discussion involves a conversation about sex toys or not is a personal decision…

Sex expert Dr. Laura Berman recommends women buy vibrators for their teenage daughters.

“You’re teaching them about their own bodies and pleasuring themselves,” Dr. Berman said on a segment of Oprah this past spring. “They don’t need [a] boy – they don’t need another person — until they’re ready.”

She went on to say that using a vibrator may even make teenage girls safer, sexually-speaking, because it may encourage them to put off their sexual experience even longer.

Oprah’s best friend, Gayle King, shook her throughout the segment, arguing that it is “just too much information.” Kids are growing up fast enough, these days, she argued. Parents don’t need to add battery-operated fuel to the raging teenage hormonal fire.

The thought crossed my mind that, upon discovering how good sexual pleasure can feel with a vibrator, teenage girls may actually be more eager to find out about the real thing. (Only to be sorely disappointed by a first experience with an inexperienced boy their own age, of course… sending them running back to their vibrator… maybe Dr. Berman has the right idea?)

Dr. Berman says it’s about empowerment – teaching teens not only the basics of sex as well as how to be safe, but educating them about orgasm. Which we all know is an important part of sex. But I’m still not sure about vibrator-shopping with a teenage daughter.

Talking to Teens About Sex
I remember learning about masturbation from Judy Blume books. A few years later, I started learning about sex from Danielle Steele. We did not talk about sex in my house – at all. While my mom knew exactly what I was reading (after all, she read Danielle Steele and Nora Roberts, too) we never discussed it.

I know this is an extreme situation – the polar opposite of what today’s experts recommend. Certainly, I agree that parents should teach their teens about sex: the basic mechanics, safe sex for protection against disease and pregnancy, and the importance of not giving into peer pressure.

It’s also important to talk about the emotional connection forged after sex, which may surprise teenage girls who don’t fully understand the difference between love and lust; sometimes, those “feel-close” hormones can even throw grown women for a loop after a casual encounter.

Girls are giving blowjobs at 13 and 14 years old. (Note to the experts: Surprise! This is NOT a new phenomenon!) So it’s wise for parents to explain that STI’s can be transmitted through oral sex and condom use is important. Parents shouldn’t just pretend it’s not happening or even that it’s an atrocity.  It happens, has been happening probably since the dawn of time, and will continue to happen.  Sex education in schools, one-on-one conversations  at home, and buying sex toys for our teens won’t change that. The best we can do is educate teens on how to be safe and protect against disease and pregnancy. Well, that or chastity belts.

A Vibe for your Teen?
While I’m very much in favor of sex education and parents talking to their kids about sex, I also agree with Gayle King that to buy a teenage girl a vibrator is, indeed, “TMI.” I think discussions with teens about sex should lean toward the practical and the clinical. Of course, if a teenager has any questions, they should be answered open and honestly, and parents should make it clear that their kids can come to them with questions.

But I can imagine only one reaction if my mother ever brought up the topic of vibrators, masturbation or the specifics of orgasm: complete mortification. I can’t imagine it would be comfortable for many teenagers – or their parents. And I don’t see many benefits to it.

With all due respect, I think Dr. Berman is not giving enough consideration to the other reasons teenagers have sex, including the same reason vibrators don’t replace real-life lovers for grown-ups. Whether you’re 14 or 40, a sex toy—while fun—can never replace the intimacy of sex with someone you love (or even like a whole lot!)

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.N. agency UNAIDS received a happy surprise last week.  A new vaccine proved to be somewhat successful in preventing one strain of the HIV virus in a sampling of 16,000 volunteers in Thailand classified as individuals at  average risk to contract AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome).

According to various sources, including the Scientific American website, 51 individuals in the vaccinated group contracted HIV by the end of the three-year trial, while 74 in the placebo group contracted the virus that causes AIDS.

Participants received condoms, sexual counseling and treatment for any STDs contracted during the study. They received an AIDS test every six months.
These numbers amount to a 31.2 % efficacy rate; the scientific community typically looks for vaccinations with an effectiveness of 70 % or higher.

Nonetheless, the results show a glimmer of hope where, previously there was none. The series of six injections were made up of Sanofi-Aventis SA’s ALVAC and VaxGen Inc.’s AIDSVAX, which each proved ineffective on their own. The vaccines are not made from whole virus and cannot cause HIV.

The scientists and researchers involved in the project report “cautious optimism” about the possibility of discovering an even more effective vaccine, and possibly even a vaccination that could prevent the HIV virus from turning into a full-blown AIDS infection.

This set of vaccinations had no effect on HIV levels of infected individuals – somewhat disheartening news as it shows that researchers may not know what factors contribute to HIV immunity, even after decades of research.
It’s also important to stress that this combination of vaccines only proved marginally effective (30 percent) in this particular strain of HIV prevalent in Thailand.

More Research Needed

In the past, I’ve spoken out quite passionately against vaccines, most notably the HPV vaccine. I don’t want to rain on the “cautiously optimistic” parade this news has evoked, but my fears about acting too hastily with any immunizations remain.

Obviously, more research is necessary in regard to the HIV vaccination and it’s nowhere near ready for FDA-approval to bring it into the U.S. market.  We haven’t heard any reports of the side effects reported with the new vaccination, either, so I’m sure that requires additional research.

However, for the scientific community to go from point zero: “We’re never going to find a vaccine against AIDS, it may not exist,” to such promising test results truly is cause for celebration.

We’re living in an exciting time when researchers may have found vaccines against certain strains of both cancer and AIDS. This is news that, growing up in the 80s, I’d never imagined.

Encouraging Promiscuity?

As with the HPV vaccine, some fear the promise of an HIV vaccine may encourage lackadaisical sexual behavior, increasing the prevalence of HIV and AIDS. Let’s hope that, if the day comes when an HIV vaccine receives FDA approval, it will be close to 100 percent effective. Who knows? With enough people receiving immunization and the herd immunity that develops over time with immunizations, it may be within our lifetimes that we see AIDS eradicated.

Even if this happens, condoms still prevent against a large number of other sexually transmitted diseases and infections. Safe sex and the use of condoms will continue to be important consideration for the prevention of a number of diseases – not to mention an easy, inexpensive and hormone-free way to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

And, it’s important to remember that we may still be years, if not decades, away from a truly effective AIDS vaccine. In the meantime, education and safe sex remain paramount.

The world mourned another entertainment icon when Patrick Swayze, 57, lost his two-year battle with pancreatic cancer.

Swayze’s career skyrocketed in 1987 with the release of the sleeper hit, Dirty Dancing. In more recent years, he went into film production and theatre work and also had a continuing role on The Beast television series. IMDB quotes Swayze as saying: “How do you nurture a positive attitude when… statistics say you’re a dead man? You go to work.”

In 1991, he was named Sexiest Man Alive by People magazine. It’s not surprising, then, that Swayze starred in two of what many consider the sexiest movies of that time: Dirty Dancing (1987) and Ghost (1990).

So let’s rewind to the 1980s for a moment – an era when movies began evolving from the subtle onscreen sensuality seen in previous generations to more blatant sexuality. It was the Reagan era: skirts were short, paychecks were large, Madonna danced “Like a Virgin,” and these were the eight sexiest films of the eighties…

Nine and 1/2 Weeks (1986)– In an informal poll, every single person over the age of 35 listed Nine and Half Weeks as the number one sexiest film of the era. I suspect those younger weren’t permitted to watch this film when it was released! With its blatant sexuality and much more than just BDSM “overtones” this movie created scandal when it was first released in 1986. Starring the always sexy Kim Basinger and Mickey Rourke, Nine and ½ Weeks was about as close to soft porn as you could get at that time and still earn an R-rating in U.S. theatres.

Dirty Dancing (1987) - Jennifer Grey’s innocence contrasted with Patrick Swayze’s sheer sensuality epitomized everything a good romance should be. Dirty Dancing entertained us, made us laugh, made us cry, and changed the way we danced. Patrick Swayze also showed off his singing voice in this one; She’s Like the Wind reached #3 on Billboard’s Top 100 and #1 on the Adult Contemporary charts.

Bull Durham (1988) – “I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.” This quote alone places Bull Durham in the number three slot, and also set pretty high standards for make out sessions of the time. Kevin Costner. Susan Sarandon. Baseball. Poetry. Handcuffs. ‘Nuff said.

Footloose (1984) – I honestly can’t think of anything Kevin Bacon was in that wasn’t incredibly sexy on some level, including Waterworld. (You have to love a man who can breathe through his ears.) But this movie launched his career and from those first dance moves to his moving speech in the church, passion is what puts Footloose on my list.

Weird Science (1985) – This one didn’t come to my mind immediately, but in an informal poll enough people endorsed it that I want to add it to the list. Granted, decades later Anthony Michael Hall grew into quite the heartthrob (hey, in a post about the 80s, I get to use words like “heartthrob”) but the film’s real appeal is Kelly LeBrock as the lab-created “Lisa,” who puts the most realistic-looking RealSkin blow-up doll to shame.

Dangerous Liaisons (1988) – The risqué plot involving love games and casual sex puts this one on the list. Hot as can be, with an all-star cast. Michelle Pfeiffer adds to the appeal, although personally, I liked her better as Catwoman in the 1992 Batman Returns.

This list really could go on and on. Honorable mentions include Basic Instinct, American Gigolo, Fatal Attraction and so many others. What’s your favorite sexy movie of the 80s?

As many readers and frequent customers to this website know, we are based in New York. Perhaps that’s why, eight years after the September 11 terrorist attacks, I feel compelled to write something – a memory, a tribute, some acknowledgment of the anniversary of an event that impacted not just New Yorkers, but all Americans.

What could 9-11 and sex possibly have in common? More than you might imagine, according to several sex researchers, including New Yorker Helen Fisher, a biological anthropologist and author of Why Him, Why Her?

Chemical Attractions

Unusual experiences, or novelty, Fisher notes in an article in Obit Magazine, increases the release of dopamine in the brain, which then triggers an increase in testosterone. That hormone enhances the sex drive in both men and women. Death – the great unknown – is novel and unusual enough to cause the “funeral sex” effect in our brains.

Highlighted, and lampooned, in movies like The Wedding Crashers, post-funeral sex is actually quite common. When we look into that casket, we face our own mortality then seek to celebrate our life. Few things make you feel quite alive as truly great sex. Also, following funerals, we seek comfort, and that, too, can be found in the primal connection between two people.

Sex after September 11

Now consider a day like September 11, 2001 – few living Americans ever experienced a tragedy of that magnitude before (and hopefully never will again). Fear, danger and novelty abounded. Not surprisingly, then, in the weeks following the terrorist attacks of September 11, more New Yorkers were having sex, at least according to some accounts.

The LA Times ran an article in October of that year describing a phenomenon called “terror sex” or “end-of-the-world” sex. Some experts attribute it to a biological desire to procreate in the face of death; bad things are happening around us but the species must survive.

Other experts say people used sex as a means to cope with the fear and vulnerability we felt. We sought comfort in others, because we all had the same feelings: grief, sadness, anger, fear. Nearly everyone in the New York area experienced a mere two degrees of separation from someone who had been killed in the attack.

A third theory for the increased sex following September 11 cites people acting impulsively as they faced their own mortality. Thoughts of: “It could have been me” made people live more in the moment, sharing feelings they may not have shared otherwise and taking greater risks. In some cases, those risks involved sex with strangers. In others, it was finally marrying a long-time lover, starting a family, or leaving a secure career to pursue their passion.

Maybe that, eight years later, is the “good” we can take from the terror attacks that changed America. In a post-9-11 world, we still never know what lurks around the bend, individually or as a nation.

Take a risk. Follow your passion. Say, “I love you.” Have wild, uninhibited sex with a partner, or partners, of your choice (but be safe.) Celebrate life.

We all know sex sells. But a luxurious New York City hotel has created a unique brand of free publicity with its floor-to-ceiling picture windows in each room. The windows provide guests with a spectacular view of the NYC skyline and nearby High Line Park in the meatpacking district. But they also create quite a spectacle for outsiders looking in.

A racy ad referring to the 18-story Standard Hotel’s opening during construction had a sexy lady clad only in a tool belt declaring, “We’ll put up with your banging if you put up with ours.” And the hotel’s blog and Facebook page specifically requested erotic photos of hotel guests.

Everything, from the full-length windows to the all-glass shower located in the center of the all-glass room, declares the Standard an exhibitionist’s paradise. And New Yorkers and out-of-towners have taken advantage, having sex, masturbating, or simply posing nude in front of the windows, much to the joy of camera-wielding passersbys. One report even cited a naked girl jumping up and down on a trampoline right in front of a window.

Then the New York Post and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn decided to rain on this naked parade. After a report in Monday’s Post, Quinn phoned hotel management, who vowed to make “a concerted effort to remind guests of the transparency of the guest room windows.”

However, Post reporters following up undercover as hotel guests received no such reminder, although the request for erotic photos had vanished from the hotel’s Web site.

Clearly, I’m no prude. And I’m definitely not offended by sex acts – public or otherwise. But I have to agree with the politicians and the Post in this situation. 1). Hotel guests are engaged in illegal acts of indecent exposure. 2). There are children in the park. Anyone who’s been around children should know it’s nearly impossible to keep children from looking at something you don’t want them to see, short of removing the offending material or removing the children from the area.

Then the cynical New Yorker in me thinks, if people having sex 18 stories up is the worst thing your kids see in the city, it’s a good day.

As I come to the close of this report, though, I remember the original idea of exposure in front of the full-length windows began as a PR ploy, with hotel staff posing nude in front of the windows during the hotel’s opening to attract attention. I’d never heard of the Standard prior to the Post’s report, and I’m sure I’m not the only one. Brilliant marketing. And it worked for nearly a year.

Both the exhibitionist and voyeur in me thinks a visit to the Standard might be fun. I better hurry, before the curtains close (and rightfully so) in this unique New York City landmark.

One of my closest online friends called me a “dork” today, and I wear the title proudly. She wasn’t talking about a whale penis, either.

I am a nerd, and always have been. Since nerds of a feather flock together… I’m also married to an IT professional.

I can’t say I was shocked to see the findings of an anonymous survey, conducted by www.PS3PriceCompare.co.uk, of 2,000 British men and women. It turns out IT workers make the best, most unselfish lovers. They are also the most likely, amongst those polled, to use sex toys.

The survey asked about whose pleasure is more important in the bedroom, the frequency of sex, and the respondents’ willingness to use sex toys.

In the question about the least selfish lovers (that is, those who said their partner’s pleasure was more important than their own), IT workers came out on top, with 82 % saying that’s the case. Seventy-four percent of office workers claim to be selfless in the bedroom, and 70 % of workers in the healthcare industry. That last statistic makes sense, as health care workers are naturally nurturing and giving. This article in the British tabloid, The Sun, shows the rest of the list.

So why are geeks better in bed?

It may come down to more Kevin Smith wisdom. As Rosario Dawson’s character in Clerks II said, “Ugly guys have to try harder.” The same goes for geeks. They know they don’t necessarily “have it all,” sothey work with what they’ve got. And they know how to work it—with attentiveness and tender loving care.

Blogger Ashley Nelson, over at Divine Caroline, has her own reasons for loving geeks. In essence, it comes down to being attracted to guys we can relate to.

Ashley, myself, and countless other women all want guys we can laugh with. Guys with just a little bit of the underdog in them, making them lovable and easy to root for. Guys who can reconnect our wireless network when it inexplicably goes down two hours before a major work deadline…True story, that last one.

Why do nerds dig vibes?

Even more interesting than IT workers making the best lovers were the survey responses indicating IT workers were the most likely (78 %) to use sex toys. Can we take the easy way out and say they’re just comfortable around technology? Something like the Beyond 2000 GX4 probably sounds uber-cool to your favorite gadget-loving geek. And who knows? He may even try to mod your ohMiBod to make it even more powerful.

But, beyond an attraction to cool tech toys, I think it comes down, again, to the confidence issue.

If a guy has made it to adulthood as a geek, most of the stigma attached to the stereotype in high school has faded away. He’s survived the atomic wedgies and all the teasing to emerge a stronger man. Geeks won’t be intimidated by the Clitapatra Twister or the Deep Stroker Rabbit.

Geeks get IT Done Right

Oddly, with all their positive attributes in the bedroom, only 38 % of nerds reported having sex more than three times a week. Office workers topped the frequency list at 53 %, ahead of sports and fitness industry professionals, at 47%.

Could it be that since nerds take more time, are more adventurous, and pay more attention to their lovers, they’re just more focused on quality than quantity? Or maybe they’re just spending more time focused on their lady’s needs – like that damn buggy wireless connection!

They (whoever “they” are) say the only two certainties in life are death and taxes. A teen in Germany is learning about the second certainty the hard way. According to this article in England’s Daily Mail, Romanian-born Alina Percea, a student in Germany, could owe the German government approximately half of her 2009 earnings.

The teen auctioned off her virginity for 8000 British pounds. That’s just shy of 13,000 American dollars – a decent sum for one night of “work!” Even nicer, Percea said she had a great time with the 45-year-old Italian businessman, and would see him again, without charging him.

Then the government had to step in and ruin a good thing. Prostitution is legal in Germany, so that wasn’t the issue. But prostitutes pay a 50 percent tax on their earnings. Additionally, because the teen earned so much money in one night, she could get hit with a VAT (Value Added Tax) bill, too, which would typically be collected from the customer. She’d end up with not even $5,000 USD for her entrepreneurial efforts.

Of course, the government may end up losing out on the deal, too, if the businessman – as so many do – decides to find some way to justify the expense in that lovely little gray area of a business “entertainment” write-off.  I’m no expert on German tax law – and I have an accountant so I don’t even have to be an expert on US tax law – but I’m pretty sure you can deduct at least 50 percent of any business entertainment expenses, which means the money the government took out of young Percea’s hands would go straight back to the customer who spent it in the first place. I guess it’s another instance of the rich getting richer because, really, do you know many people who have $13,000 lying around to pay for sex?

A few other observations, courtesy of a close friend of mine, name withheld because he has no idea I’m quoting him on a sex blog, but I’m pretty sure he’d think it was cool.

- “Why would anyone pay $13,000 for a virgin? If I’m paying that much for sex, I want someone with some experience, who knows what she’s doing already.”

- “Why would anyone pay $13,000 for a virgin? I’ve bedded two and all it cost me was dinner and drinks.”

My friend (who is bi) then confessed he’d give up his ass-cherry for $13,000 but not for the paltry sum of $5,000, unless he was going to do it anyway, in which case, the cash would be a nice bonus.

Yours truly then began to consider what she might give up – and realized she’s got no cherries left to offer. Maybe a kinky S&M experience or two if the price were right?

My friend and I both realized there’s very little we’d want to do for $5,000 if we weren’t planning on doing it anyway. For most people, an extra $5,000, while it would be nice to have, wouldn’t exactly mark a significant turning point in your life, while losing your virginity is a memory to treasure or regret. Granted, it can be a memory to treasure or regret whether you get paid for it or not, and, according to reports, Percea has no emotional or physical regrets whatsoever about the experience.

I can only hope the teen learned an important fiscal lesson, which will serve her well in all her future endeavors, sexual and otherwise. Always, always, always factor taxes into your hourly rates, because the government will take their cut. They always do.

Darling readers, please share your thoughts. What would you do for $5,000? What about $13,000 (tax-free)?

Newer Posts »