TIME Sex

Here’s What a 100-Year-Old Sex Therapist Thinks is Wrong With Sex Today

She says our hectic work lives are killing our sex lives

She was born before the invention of the stop sign, but sex therapist Shirley Zussman has some thoughts on ‘hooking up.’ “I don’t think it’s as frantic as casual sex was in the sixties,” she says, noting that modern ‘hooking up’ isn’t as exciting without the context of a sexual revolution. Besides, she adds: “In the long run, sexual pleasure is just one part of what men and women want from each other.”

At 100, Dr. Zussman is still a practicing sex therapist in New York City. In the 50-plus years since she began counseling people about all things related to sex, Dr. Zussman has witnessed everything from the legalization of the contraceptive birth control pill in 1960 (she started in sex therapy shortly afterwards) to the AIDs epidemic in the 1980s to the rise of internet porn in the new millennium.

She’s one of the oldest sex therapists in the world, but that might be the least extraordinary thing about her life and career. Born at the beginning of World War I, she graduated from Smith college in 1934, in the same class as Julia Child. Zussman was mentored through her graduate dissertation by Margaret Mead, and in the 1960s learned about sex therapy from Masters and Johnson, the inspiration for the Showtime series Masters of Sex. Her husband, a gynecologist, performed one of the first legal abortions in New York.

Here’s what she has to say about casual sex, cell phones, and how our hectic work lives are changing our attitudes toward sex.

On how being busy hurts your sex life:

“The use of time is very different in our society today. People are busy all the time. That was not true when I was growing up. At this stage of our development, we want to cover everything, we want to know everything, we want to do everything, and there’s also [our personal] economy which requires an immense amount of time and effort…There is a limit to how much energy and desire and time you can give to one person when there is all this pressure make more money, to be the CEO, to buy a summer house, people want more and more and more. Desire requires a certain amount of energy.

It’s a consequence of being exhausted…The most common problem I see is a lack of desire, a lack of interest. I had a patient say to me, ‘ I love my husband, I love making love to him, but I come home from work, I’ve been with people all day, I just want to crash.’”

On an increased openness about sex:

“I don’t think that the stigma around sex therapy exists like it was in the early years. People were ashamed they had to go to a psychiatrist or a social worker, because it means they needed help. Many people resist the idea that somebody needs to tell them how to have sex.”

“There were changes in the culture, too, there was the sexual revolution. There was the development of the pill, women were freer to let not worry so much about getting pregnant, there was every magazine and TV program talking about sex, there was every advertisement using sex to sell their product. There was an overwhelming immersion in the whole idea of getting more pleasure out of sex. It was not just about having babies.”

On what she learned from Masters and Johnson:

“They were recognizing that it was not all just glamorous and wonderful to be sexual, but that one almost had to learn to be a good partner…Their way of communicating was one of their greatest contributions, and that was not to talk so much about it, but to start with touching and caressing and stroking and kissing, and not rush for that golden bell in the middle of the carousel. It doesn’t start with the man having an erection and then you have intercourse, 1,2,3.”

And what she thinks of the TV show:

“I went to the preview party and met some of the actors in it. I was introduced to Michael Sheen, and he knew that I had known Masters and Johnson, so he said ‘tell me, how do you think I’m representing him?’ I said, ‘I think youre doing a pretty good job, but there’s a major difference.’ He said, ‘whats that?’ I said, ‘you’re handsome.’”

On her weirdest experience in 50 years of sex therapy:

“Someone called me and said he needed some help. He said ‘I’m a bad boy and I’m looking for someone for spankings.’ I had to make it clear that that’s not within my range of expertise.”

On the difference between casual sex in the 60s and ‘hooking up’ today:

“I think there’s a big change in the way we view casual sex. In the 60s it wasn’t just casual—it was frantic. It was something you expected to happen to you, you wanted it to happen, it was sort of a mad pursuit of sexual pleasure. But I think over time the disadvantages of that kind of behavior began to become apparent. There was the emotional crash– the intimacy was not there in the way that people need and want. There was a concern about sexual diseases, and then eventually AIDS made a major impact on calming that excitement.”

I think what was expected of casual sex – frantic sex– was something that didn’t deliver. Because in the long run, sexual pleasure is just one part of what men and women want from each other. They want intimacy, they want closeness, they want understanding, they want fun, and they want someone who really cares about them beyond just going to bed with them.”

I think hooking up includes some aspect of the kind of sex we were just talking about, but in a very much modified, and limited way. It’s not as frantic.”

On the popularity of oral sex:

“Oral sex was always part of the picture. I think primitive people learned how to get pleasure from oral sex, we just didn’t know about it. Oral sex was never talked about in your mother’s generation or my mother’s generation or my generation in the early days.”

On internet pornography:

“There’s nothing new about pornography. It’s been around since prehistoric days…I think that’s a healthy thing that people have the ability and the freedom to allow themselves to fantasize. But I have a number of patients who sit in front of the computer and watch pornography online, and somehow lose interest in seeking a partner. I see that a lot in some single men who don’t make the effort to go out in the world to face the issues, face the possible rejection—they satisfy their sexual needs sitting in front of the computer and masturbating.”

On living to be 100:

“We’ve been brainwashed to think that we all become couch potatoes when we’re old. You have to have expectations of yourself! You can make friends in many different ways, but you have to make the effort. You can’t say ‘oh , all my friends died,’ or ‘they’re sick,’ or ‘they don’t want to do what I want to do.’ You have to make an effort to find those new people. They don’t just come running to your door the way they might have when you were growing up.”

On the evils of cell phones:

“I’m shocked at the lack of connection between people because of iPhones. There is so much less of actual physical connection. There’s less touching, there’s less talking, there’s less holding, there’s less looking. People get pleasure from looking at each other. From a smile, and touching. We need touching to make us feel wanted and loved. That’s lacking so much in this generation. Lack of looking, lack of touching, lack of smiling. I don’t get it. I don’t get how people aren’t missing that, and don’t seem to think they are.”

 

 

 

TIME Sex

Don’t Be Afraid of Housework, Guys. It Won’t Lead to Less Sex

That’s what the latest research shows, calling into question earlier work that suggested that more equal roles in the home contributed to less fun in bed

Housework can be a downer, but when husbands pitch in to cook, clean and keep the abode tidy, it could also put a damper on their sex lives. So said researchers from the University of Washington in 2013. If husbands left the meals and toilet cleaning to their wives, they had sex nearly twice as much as husbands who performed these chores.

But Daniel Carlson, an assistant professor of sociology at Georgia State University, and his colleagues say that study used data from the 1980s and 1990s, before more egalitarian roles in both in and outside of the home became the norm. Plus, other work suggested the opposite, and hinted that women often used sex as a reward for their husbands who performed chores, leading to more sex among men who picked up the laundry detergent. So he and his team looked at more recent data involving 487 couples enrolled in the 2006 Marital and Relationship Survey to see if housework continued to have a chilling effect on sex.

To a certain extent, it did. Among couples where men shouldered most of the daily household chores, the sex was less frequent and less satisfactory, just as the 2013 study found. But in Carlson’s study, couples who shared housework more equally also reported having a healthy and happy sex life, as did couples in which women di most of the cooking and cleaning. “Where previous research said egalitarianism was the problem, and that couples with a more traditional division of labor seemed to be doing better, our study shows that egalitarian couples have in some respects caught up,” says Carlson. “Both [groups] are leading sex lives that are satisfying.”

The reason, he says, may have to do with the broader effect that sharing responsibilities have on a relationship. Couples who feel they are sharing the duties of raising a family and managing a household are more likely to be happy in their relationship, and that leads to more affection.

MORE: Chore Wars: How the Division of Domestic Duties Really Affects a Couple’s Sex Life

The results, which were presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, won’t likely be the last word on understanding how gender roles within relationships affect sexual attraction, not to mention the strength of the bond between couples. But the research does hint that as evolved as we like to think we are about how equal men and women are when it comes to raising a family and running a household, we still have a ways to go before doing the dishes and scrubbing toilets are truly gender-blind tasks.

While more couples are accepting of situations when the husband and wife share in these duties, among couples in which the husband is bearing most of the burden of managing the home, social and cultural hurdles still exist. “When couples end up in an arrangement where the male is doing the majority of the housework, it’s not something that the couples tend to choose,” says Carlson. “They end up in the arrangements due to unforeseen circumstances such as the male partner losing his job, or the female getting a big raise that makes her the primary bread winner.” While these couples are relatively rare, making up only 5% of the study population, they may represent the final barrier to making housework not just a woman’s job.

MORE: Why Husbands Who Share Household Chores Miss Out on Sex

MONEY The Economy

Sex Keeps Getting Cheaper Around the Globe

Exterior of the Love Ranch at night
Brad DeCecco

The going rate for sex with a prostitute has plummeted in recent years, according to analysis from the Economist.

In 2006, the price for one hour of sex with a female prostitute averaged $340 around the globe. Today, the average rate is down to $260.

The Economist came up with this data after reviewing the online profiles and listings of 190,000 female sex workers in a total of 84 cities in 12 countries. There are several reasons cited for why the price of prostitution has fallen steadily in recent years, including the migration of poor sex workers into wealthier countries, which has pushed prices down. There’s also some indication that the increased availability of legal prostitution in countries such as Germany has put downward pressure on rates for paid sex.

Overall, the explanation for the decline in the price of sex boils to the same two factors that have affected so many other industries over the last decade or so: The responsibility (or blame, if you will) can be traced back to the Great Recession, and the rise of the Internet’s facilitation of virtually every aspect of life. “The fall in prices can be attributed in part to the 2007-8 financial crisis,” the Economist reported. “The increase in people selling sex online—where it is easier to be anonymous—has probably boosted local supply.”

Increased supply means increased competition, and lower prices in order to win customers’ business. This turn of events should put a smile on the face of folks like comedian Jim Norton, who wrote a stunning pro-paid-sex essay titled “In Defense of Johns” last week for TIME.com.

Naturally, sex workers are upset about the decline in asking prices for prostitution. An analysis by the Economist on all the different ways the Internet has impacted the oldest profession indicates that the shift online hasn’t been all bad for prostitutes, however. By being able to advertise and sell sex online, prostitutes don’t have to rely as much on brothels, pimps, or other intermediaries, so less of a sex worker’s money is going to a middleman. Selling sex on the web is certainly not safe, but it’s considered safer than streetwalking, partly because prostitutes can do rudimentary background checks on clients and share information about violent or abusive customers.

Generally speaking, however, it’s hard to come away after reading the Economist’s investigation and not be depressed. Here’s a group of workers who suffered mightily during the recession years and are still feeling its lingering effects. It’s more difficult to make a living in this trade than it has been in the past, what with clients who have less cash to spend and who have more, lower-priced options to choose from thanks to the Internet and other technology.

That description could be used to sum up the recent plight of many retail employees, travel agents, factory workers, or, heck, journalists. Instead, in this instance, it describes the situation facing women who feel forced to sell sex for money.

MORE: Dear Johns: Actually, You Should Be Ashamed to Buy Sex

TIME Sex

This Sex-Ed Book Is Way Too Sexy, Parents Complain

Sex Spelled in Alphabet Blocks
Corbis

Teaches ninth-graders about masturbation, like they've never heard of it before

California parents are complaining that a new sex-education book for ninth-graders has way too much hot, naked sex in it.

The Fremont school board voted to replace a 10-year-old sex-ed book with a new book, titled Your Health Today, which includes details about things like foreplay, masturbation and bondage.

Some parents are not happy about it. Almost 2,000 of them have signed a petition to remove the book from schools, but the school district says it has no intention of pulling it.

“There’s a section that tells you how to talk to your prospective partners about your sexual history,” parent Asfia Ahmed told the San Jose Mercury News. “I am a very liberal person, and, in spite of that, I still find the book shocking.” Other parents were appalled to find mentions of ropes, handcuffs and sex toys.

School-board president Lara Calvert-York said that despite parental objections, it’s better to educate teens early, before they become sexually active. “Ninth grade is the last time when we have an opportunity to help educate our students on how to be physically and emotionally safe,” she told the Mercury News.

[San Jose Mercury News]

 

TIME Opinion

Dear Johns: Actually, You Should Be Ashamed to Buy Sex

The Anti-Social Network Comedy Performances
Comedian Jim Norton performs during The Anti-Social Network comedy show at the Palms Casino Resort in Las Vegas on July 3, 2011 Ethan Miller—Getty Images

Jim Norton isn't entitled to sex, but women are entitled to human dignity

After a nationwide crackdown on men who buy sex in the 8th National Day of Johns Arrests earlier this week, comedian Jim Norton wrote an essay asserting his right to pay prostitutes for sex, called “In Defense of Johns.”

Don’t get me wrong, Norton is a funny guy. And I’m all for comedians pushing our social limits in stand-up, because that’s what comedy is all about. But why can’t a famous comic like him find someone who wants to have sex with him for his good looks and sparkling personality?

Norton’s essay wasn’t a joke — it was an actual argument defending the right to pay for sex. “But really, perhaps the most shameful thing I can admit is this: I’m not really ashamed,” he wrote. “And neither should any of these other (unmarried) johns who have been arrested.”

Actually, Jim, you should be ashamed to pay for sex. And so should all the other men who purchase women and girls, many of whom have been trafficked, enslaved and repeatedly raped. No amount of rationalization can get around the basic principle of market economics: if people like you didn’t buy girls, they wouldn’t be sold, and if they couldn’t be sold, they wouldn’t be trafficked and abused.

(Of course, there are also women who buy sex, and plenty of men and boys who are trafficking victims, but let’s focus on the male-client/female-sex-worker argument that Norton is going with.)

There was one part of Norton’s essay that I did find funny. It was the part where he said all the girls he buys are oh-so lucky to be with him. “I suppose you could say I am the consummate john,” he wrote. “I’m loyal, I’m dedicated and I will always come back.” He’s different from all those other nasty, mean clients, because he’s a really nice guy! “I never pick them up to be abusive,” he said. “I always feel extraordinarily loving and close to them.” Hahahahahaha, Jim Norton. Good one!

Did you ever consider, Jim, whether these girls felt “extraordinarily loving and close” to you? I’m guessing their feelings were a bit more complicated. They might have slept with you only because they would get beaten if they didn’t make a certain amount of money that night. And if you thought they enjoyed it, they were probably faking, because that’s exactly what you pay them to do. Sure, some woman do choose this line of work, and sex-workers unions argue that prostitution can be a freely made choice, but that’s not the case for the vast majority: U.S. State Department estimates that 80% of the 600,000 to 800,000 people trafficked across international borders every year are trafficked for sex.

And while we don’t know what the prostitutes thought of Norton, we do know what some sex workers say about their clients. One former prostitute named Kira put it this way: “You guys think we really liked having sex with you, but we would lie to you just to get your money … I hated you when I was out there,” she told men who had been busted for buying sex, according to PBS.

Men like Norton think that their entitlement to sex trumps a woman’s entitlement to dignity and safety. Many of the women they buy are among the most vulnerable human beings on the planet, no matter how wide they smile when a john rolls down his window or plunks down his credit card. According to a report cited by the U.S. State Department, 89% of people who work in prostitution worldwide want to escape. At least 65% of people who work in prostitution were sexually abused as children, and over 60% are raped on the job, according to a 2004 study by Melissa Farley, an activist and psychologist who studies the effect of prostitution on women. And according to Polaris, a Washington, D.C.–based antitrafficking group, over 40% of people trafficked for sex are under 18. Norton says he’s spent the “equivalent of a Harvard Law School education” on sex, which is precisely what keeps trafficking victims in the sex trade.

Norton claims that legalizing prostitution would help solve these problems, but what he really means is that it would be easier for him to buy sex without his pesky conscience getting in the way of his peskier penis. Because even though there are valid arguments for the legalization of prostitution, I’m finding it hard to believe that Norton really has the best interests of sex workers in mind.

Because despite the theories, there’s very little evidence that legalizing prostitution makes life better for sex workers. Even though prostitution is legal in Nevada, over 80% of the sex workers Farley interviewed told her they wanted to escape sex work. And five years after prostitution was legalized in Germany 2002, the Family Ministry found “no solid proof to date” that the legalization had reduced crime and abuse, and had “not brought about any measurable actual improvement in the social coverage of prostitutes,” according to the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel. Proponents say that legal prostitution can be regulated to ensure the safety of the sex workers, but German snack bars have more regulations than brothels do.

The Netherlands has also been held up as an example of what happens when prostitution is legalized, but the results are mixed. The mayor of Amsterdam said in 2003 that legalizing prostitution had failed to keep sex workers safe, since “it appeared impossible to create a safe and controllable zone for women that was not open to abuse by organized crime.”

Most arguments for legalization presume that tons of women would choose sex work if it were safe and legal, but that’s convenient wishful thinking for johns who want to let themselves off the hook. “In the real world, Julia Roberts’ character from Pretty Woman does not exist,” said Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, who organizes the National Day of Johns Arrests and advocates for harsher punishment for sex buyers. “Every time a john purchases sex, he is catalyzing a violent and oppressive industry.”

“The autonomous prostitute we envisioned when the prostitution law was enacted in 2001, who negotiates on equal terms with her client and can support herself with her income, is the exception,” German politician Thekla Walker said at a political convention. Instead, the law allows sex workers “merely the freedom to allow themselves to be exploited,” according to Der Spiegel.

Some argue that making prostitution legal could make sex workers safer, because they could call the police if a client was getting violent. But criminalizing the johns would do the same thing: prostitutes would know they won’t face jail time for calling for help, and the violent jerk would be cuffed.

That’s why targeting the johns is the best way to keep vulnerable women safe. Since Sweden introduced a measure in 1999 to target clients instead of sex workers, the population of prostitutes has been reduced by two-thirds, from 2,500 in 1998 to just 1,000 in 2013. France recently did the same, imposing fines for men who pay for sex. And even New York City prosecutors are increasingly focused on targeting buyers and pimps instead of sex workers. Because women and children will be sold as long as there are men to buy them, and when the demand for paid sex outstrips the supply of willing prostitutes, traffickers are ready to step in.

Prostitutes have been shamed and marginalized for thousands of years, but men who buy sex are considered so normal that they’re given the most ordinary name of all: john, a name shared by no less than five U.S. Presidents. Imagine the name whore was as common as john, and you’ll see how ridiculous this is — think about “Whore Quincy Adams” as our sixth President. Let’s hope we see the day when the men who choose to buy sex are shamed as much as the women who are often forced sell it. They’re the ones that should be ashamed of themselves.

TIME Diet/Nutrition

3 Reasons You Should Eat More Spicy Food

Spicy chili, Salento, Apulia, Italy in March 2014.
Spicy chili, Salento, Apulia, Italy in March 2014. DeAgostini—Getty Images

They have more health perks than you know

Hot peppers add a lot of flavor to our food, but they may be doing much more than just making our eyes water. New research shows they might have tumor-fighting benefits, as well. Here are a few reasons you should consider adding some spice into your diet.

It may reduce risk for tumors

A new study in mice published in the journal The Journal of Clinical Investigation found that the spicy chemical in peppers, capsaicin, can activate cell receptors in the intestinal lining, thereby creating a reaction that reduces the risk of developing tumors. The researchers suggest that capsaicin, which is also used as a analgesic by exhausting nerves so they cannot report pain, could help turn off an over-reactive receptor that might spur tumor growth. They fed capsaicin to mice genetically prone to develop more tumors and found that the capsaicin reduced tumors and extended the lives of those mice, especially when they were also given an anti-inflammatory drug. The findings are very new and haven’t be replicated, but it could be another win for spicy food lovers down the line.

It improves your sex life

Now, there’s some debate over how effective natural aphrodisiacs really are, but hey, if you’re not interested in trying pharmaceutical libido boosters, why not give more flavorful food a try. A review of research published in the journal Food Research International in 2011 found ginseng and saffron booth boosted sexual performance. What’s unknown are what the most effective doses are, and how it’s best to consume them. But adding a pinch here or there won’t hurt.

It helps with weight loss

Research has shown that spicy food can increase satiety, but researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, Center for Human Nutrition have also shown that peppers might actually encourage your body to burn more calories. In a small study of men and women, those who were taking pills with pepper components over one month were shown to burn more fat than those taking a placebo. Other researchers at Purdue University found that eating less than a teaspoon of dried cayenne red pepper lowered appetite and increased calorie burn.

While the science isn’t bulletproof, it’s growing, and provides a simple way for eaters to give themselves an edge. Not to mention the numbers show that consumers are eating more spicy food anyway. A 2014 food industry report found that 54% of consumers say hot or spicy foods are appealing compared to 46% in 2009. And, younger diners between ages 18 and 34 are the most likely to order something spicy off the menu.

TIME Culture

Who’s to Blame for The Bachelorette’s Slut-Shaming?

When the topic of sex comes up, female contestants just can't win

 You can change notification settings in the options pageClose
Erin Gloria Ryan
Republicans CLAIM they’re upping their digital game yet they have yet to make a ‘***lawless’ parody video about Obama. Long way to go guys.
Ben Smith verified
Pretty hard to see @SDNYnews going quite this far out on a limb if nobody’s getting indicted. nytimes.com/2014/07/31/nyr…
jim impoco verified
Our 1995 #ebola cover could run right now: pic.twitter.com/w7PgzHP2IR
Slate verified
Rand Paul wants MSNBC “hacks and cranks” to apologize to him on TV “for 24 hours”: slate.me/1nWuWiG
NBC News verified
Eric Holder: Police should carry heroin antidote naloxone nbcnews.to/1ACWFt3 pic.twitter.com/7vyPeyWWdG
TIME Culture
Brian Williams pulled the ultimate embarrassing dad move ti.me/UD8hva

Fox News The Five cohost Bob Beckel called The Bachelorette’s Andi Dorfman a “slut” on his show Tuesday. It’s a demeaning and infuriating comment that caters to double standards for women and men, but it’s also the kind that The Bachelorette thrives on.

Why did Beckel make the comment about Andi and not the dozens of women on these shows that have come before her? For those of you who don’t keep up on reality TV news, a sort of bombshell was dropped on an otherwise dull season of The Bachelorette Monday: the runner-up of this season, Nick Viall, broke an unspoken rule on Monday night: he talked about sex.

Both The Bachelor and The Bachelorette walk a fine line between prudishness and salaciousness by implying sex without ever explicitly discussing it. This tricky balance comes to a head in the third-to-last episode of each season when that season’s Bachelor or Bachelorette can opt into sharing the Fantasy Suite with any or all of the three remaining contestants vying for his or her heart. The two sleep in the same room (littered with candles and rose petals, though apparently not condoms) overnight, and the cameras stop filming. Sex is implied, but any footage or discussion of it is edited out.

Until Monday, on the show’s live after show. “If you weren’t in love with me, I’m just not sure why, like, why you made love with me,” Nick said to Andi on the show, mentioning that their night together was, to him, “fiance-type stuff.”

Andi responded that his question was “below the belt” but reassured him that the feelings she had shared with him were real.

(N.B. Andi shared the Fantasy Suite with two of the remaining three contestants. Most Bachelors and Bachelorettes will spend the night with all three.)

The immediate reaction on Twitter was that Nick was a crazy stalker who just slut-shamed Andi as revenge. The secondary fallout, however, has been pointed at Andi. Enter, Fox News.

“She’s a slut!” Bob Beckel said on his show. “I’m not kidding you. She sleeps with someone else, and then doesn’t tell the guy about it. This is what America’s come to, this crap.”

Panelist Andrea Tantaros responded with outrage: “Are you kidding me right now? Excuse me, Bob. You probably sleep with a different woman every night.”

“I’m not some Bachelor or Bachelorette,” he shot back.

“Those in glass boudoirs, Beckel, those in glass Boudoirs,” she replied.

Even if Nick didn’t intend to slut-shame Andi with his question, others inevitably picked up on his very public revelation about their reality TV relationship and did the deed for him.

And I honestly do believe Nick did not intend any harm. Nick’s entire M.O. this season of The Bachelor has been being skeptical of the process in the beginning but allowing himself to become vulnerable enough to fall in love with Andi on his “journey.” The show also teased that Nick was notoriously bad with breakups (this one is no exception), and he was visibly shaking during their face-to-face conversation. I would like to (perhaps optimistically) believe that Nick was truly hurt and trying to be honest about his feelings when he asked Andi that question, and simply disregarded the show’s concocted and unspoken rule that one does not talk about sex.

And if Nick was a woman, this complaint would never be considered some sort of insult to a male Andi. It wouldn’t reflect poorly on Andi if she were a man who had had sex with both contestants. We wouldn’t see complaints on Fox News.

However, Nick’s question has a problematic undertone: he is implying that Andi ought not sleep with someone unless she is in love with him.

And even though this franchise has aired for 12 years under the same premise, we still don’t like to think about the fact that people are having sex with multiple people on this show.

Correction: we don’t like to think about women having sex on the show.

After all, the men are allowed to be “players.” In the “Men Tell All” episode before this year’s finale, it was revealed that one of the contestants failed a lie detector test about the number of women he has slept with, saying previously that he had slept with less than 20. The audience laughed. When Nick asked his question, jaws dropped.

It’s 2014, so Andi has the right—like any other Bachelor or Bachelorette or human being—to have sex for a myriad of reasons besides love. Plus, the show is also constructed to make her develop feelings for more than one man at a time, so it shouldn’t be shocking that she kisses or sleeps with or does whatever with multiple men.

Nick’s question actually reminds me of an incident from the last season of The Bachelor in which a contestant named Clare showed up at Bachelor Juan Pablo’s room at 4 a.m. and invited him for a swim in the ocean. They swam—and then some. Again, the show danced around the sex, but it was heavily implied.

After the incident, Juan Pablo essentially slut-shamed Clare for having sex with him—even though he consented at the time. “Maybe it wasn’t right,” he told her on the show. “I have a daughter, I don’t want her to see what happens, if she sees it.”

Clare (understandably) was mortified because she believed she was a consenting adult having sex with another consenting adult. “I knew when we were in the ocean, that it was a mutual feeling. If he didn’t think it was right he shouldn’t have done it. I would have respected that,” she said to the camera as she cried.

Again, the woman is blamed for seducing the man, for having sex, for not waiting until she is in love. (Juan Pablo uses his daughter and family as a weapon, contrasting Clare to a motherly figure for his daughter and essentially calling her a slut.)

So if you’re a woman, it’s best not to enter the Bachelor universe. Talk of sex is frowned upon, but inevitable. Though the show itself doesn’t encourage slut-shaming—Juan Pablo did that all on his own—clearly the audience wants to use the show as a platform for slut-shaming, as happened with Nick this season. After 12 years, tacit agreements about avoiding sex talk are breaking down. Will anyone try to “pull a Nick” next season and bring up sex or even use sex talk as a strategy? Will the producers embrace this brave new world of candidness? If so, talking heads like Bob Beckel will be waiting in the weeds, ready to cry “slut.”

TIME movies

Make Chaste: How the Faith-Based Counterpart to 50 Shades of Grey Came to Be

'Old Fashioned' will offer an alternative vision of romance — but it predates its release-weekend competition

When Variety announced this week that the 50 Shades of Grey movie would have some competition in its Valentine’s Day opening weekend next year, the timing was impeccable: interest in 50 Shades had recently returned to fever pitch, with the release of the first trailer (which you can watch, above, for the umpteenth time) and that meant that the anti-50 Shades brigade was out in full force too.

That’s where Old Fashioned comes in.

“A former frat boy and free-spirited woman together attempt the impossible, an old-fashioned courtship in contemporary America,” reads the movie’s logline. The premise involves a romantic male lead who makes a commitment to not be alone with his intended until after marriage. It is, producer Nathan Nazario says, an “unconventional approach to romance” — and pretty much the exact opposite of the sex-contract-centric 50 Shades. As Variety notes, Old Fashioned’s distributor Freestyle Releasing has had success with that kind of “unconventional” before, having released God’s Not Dead earlier this year.

Though the idea of an upstart response to mass interest in BDSM relationships makes for a fun meta-narrative, Old Fashioned isn’t actually a reaction to 50 Shades of Grey.

The raunchy novel by E.L. James that started it all was published in 2011, but Old Fashioned‘s writer-director-star Rik Swartzwelder tells TIME that he’d been working on the screenplay for a decade. “I’m a huge cinema buff and I see all kinds of movies but I had never seen a film that reflected my dating life,” he says. That inspired him to create something that would.

Swartzwelder describes the film as “not a religious film, per se” but “a film with faith,” which was financed by individuals who believed in the story. The film was shot in late 2011 and, though Swartzwelder says 50 Shades wasn’t on his radar while he was coming up with the story, the team was aware of the phenomenon by the time they hit post-production. And even if the movie didn’t start out having anything to do with the bigger blockbuster that will share its release date, it was a response to what its creators see as a culture that celebrates ideas like those in 50 Shades but doesn’t seem to create stable romantic relationships. Nazario cites the American divorce rate as evidence that there needs to be an alternative to the mainstream way of finding a mate, and making a movie that presents one such alternative is one way to help that along.

So, despite the lack of a concrete tie between the two movies, the timing is — obviously — not a coincidence.

“For a small independent film with no stars, timing is always a consideration,” Nazario explains. “We were looking ahead at dates and observed that 50 Shades had put a stake on Valentine’s Day. We’d actually been thinking about that date and, when we saw that, it seemed like a good opportunity.”

Still, its audience will have to wait a few months to find out what Old Fashioned‘s creator really thinks of 50 Shades. “The answer to your question is the film [Old Fashioned] itself,” says Swartzwelder. “I’ll let people draw their own conclusions.”

TIME Panda Sex

Richard Nixon Asked a Reporter to Watch Panda Sex

A new book details the former president’s keen interest making sure his new pandas got busy

When former Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai gave the United States two pandas in 1972, the result, as captured in a pun-perfect turn of phrase by first lady Pat Nixon, was “panda-monium,” report the authors of the new book The Nixon Tapes: 1971-1972.

And that panda-monium–something which we here at TIME, progenitors of our very own replacement panda-cam, know all about–has continued, once more proving that we are but one nation, under panda.

But the very first panda lover of all of us–the prototypical panda pursuer, the panda panderer to rule them all–was none other than bowling enthusiast and nearly two-term President Richard M. Nixon.

Nixon’s interest in his new Chinese pandas, Ling Ling and Hsing Hsing, was such that he was touchingly concerned with their sex lives.

Here’s Nixon’s exchange with Washington Star foreign editor Crosby Noyes, courtesy of The Washington Post.

Nixon: The problem, however, with pandas is that they don’t know how to mate. The only way they learn how is to watch other pandas mate. You see?

Noyes: [laughs]

Nixon: And, so they’re keeping them there a little while—these are younger ones—

Noyes: I see.

Nixon: —to sort of learn, you know, how it’s done.

Noyes: Sure, learn the ropes—

Nixon: Now, if they don’t learn it, they’ll get over here and nothing will happen, so I just thought you should just have your best reporter out there to see whether these pandas—

You get the picture.

In exchange for the pandas, the U.S. gave China two musk oxen, which are neat enough, sure, but it’s pretty clear who got the better end of that deal.

TIME celebrity

5 Controversial Quotes From Lana Del Rey

Day 2 - Glastonbury Festival
Lana Del Rey performs on the Pyramid stage on Day 2 of the Glastonbury Festival at Worthy Farm on June 28, 2014 in Glastonbury, England. (Photo by Tabatha Fireman/Redferns via Getty Images) Tabatha Fireman—Redferns via Getty Images

She's "annoyed" her sex life didn't further her career, but that's just the tip of the iceberg

Lana Del Rey is never boring — the eccentric pop star can always be relied on to provide at least a few nuggets of weirdness in any given interview. She’s getting flak right now for the first item listed below, but why are we surprised? She’s always got something offbeat and amazing to say.

1) She’s “annoyed” that her sex life never helped her get a record deal.

Even though one of her new songs is called “F***ed My Way Up to the Top,” Del Rey told Complex magazine that sleeping with guys in the music industry has never helped her career.

You know, I have slept with a lot of guys in the industry. But none of them helped me get my record deals. Which is annoying.

Earlier, she said:

I relate to being the person who people come to for “such a change from the old routine,” but not being the main thing. I had a long-term relationship for seven years with someone who was the head of a label and I felt like I was that change of routine. I was always waiting to become the person who his kids came home to, and it never happened.

It’s important to note that most of the coverage of this controversial quote has focused on the “I have slept with a lot of guys” part, not the effect it might have had on her career. Several big media outlets put the quote in their headlines, which can come off as slut-shaming.

2) Tesla is way cooler than feminism.

In a recent interview in Fader magazine, she made it clear where she stands on the age-old Feminists vs. Aliens debate:

“For me, the issue of feminism is just not an interesting concept. I’m more interested in, you know, SpaceX and Tesla, what’s going to happen with our intergalactic possibilities. Whenever people bring up feminism, I’m like, god. I’m just not really that interested.”

Feminist aliens have yet to weigh in.

3) She kind of has a death wish.

She once told The Guardian that she admired Amy Winehouse and Kurt Cobain so much that “I wish I were dead already,” which led to a lengthly discussion of mortality:

Interviewer: Is early death glamorous?

“I don’t know. Ummm, yeah.”

Interviewer: Don’t say that

“I do! I don’t want to have to keep doing this. But I am.

Interviewer: Do what? Make Music?

“Everything. That’s just how I feel. If it wasn’t that way, then I wouldn’t say it. I would be scared if I knew [death] was coming, but …”

The singer retracted her comments afterward on Twitter in a series of now-deleted tweets, saying the interviewer had asked her leading questions.

4) Her friend Juliette Lewis didn’t realize that was her on SNL.

In outtakes from this month’s Rolling Stone profile, Del Rey reveals that she was friends with Juliette Lewis before the actress publicly dissed her Saturday Night Live performance:

I was actually friends with her before that but she didn’t know it was me on TV. I had been more blonde before or something. She called me and was like, ‘Oh, I’m so sorry.’ But we got over it. Because the truth is, we’re birds of a feather in a way. In the end, we thought it was really funny.

Because messing up your friend’s hair color can happen to anybody!

5) Every day is Opposite Day.

Because Lana Del Rey is George Constanza:

“I’m really specific about why I’m doing something or writing something. But it always kind of gets translated in the opposite fashion. I haven’t done it yet, but I’ve learned that everything I’m going to do is going to have the opposite reaction of what I meant. So I should do the opposite if I want a good reaction.”

When Rolling Stone pointed out that George already tried this, she says, “Oh really? That’s awesome. Me and George Costanza!”

6) She mixes up sounds and colors.

It sounds like the directions she gave to Ultraviolence producer Dan Auerbach were, um, confusing (also from the Rolling Stone outtakes:)

“I would explain things to him in terms of colors and touchstone words,” she says. “My word for the record was ‘fire,’ you know, blue fire, when a flame gets so hot it goes from red to blue. And I told him I wanted everything to sound like it was in the key of blue. And I think at first he was like, ‘What the f*ck?'”

This was mostly to distinguish from Lady Gaga, who wants everything to sound like it’s in the key of rainbows.

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser