Playful, Dirty and Free: Peter Birch Explores Uninhibited Sex

By Peter Birch

Why do so many people seem to see only in black and white? I’m referring to relationships and sex, the way the majority take the attitude that you’re either with somebody or you’re not, on or off, and that if you are with someone then to do anything with somebody else is inherently wrong. Okay, if that’s the way you want it then fine. That’s your choice, but really, why? Is it human nature? No. Certainly there are genetic influences on human sexual behaviour but they don’t ensure rigid monogamy. It’s largely a social thing, but does that make it right? Societies vary and they change. Nothing is carved in stone.

• Language: English
• Publisher: House of Erotica
• Release date: Dec 21, 2011
• ISBN: 9781849899390

Book preview

behaviour.

Let Us Play

Why do so many people seem to see only in black and white?

I’m referring to relationships and sex, the way the majority take the attitude that you’re either with somebody or you’re not, on or off, and that if you are with someone then to do anything with somebody else is inherently wrong. Okay, if that’s the way you want it then fine. That’s your choice, but really, why?

Is it human nature? No. Certainly there are genetic influences on human sexual behaviour but they don’t ensure rigid monogamy. It’s largely a social thing, but does that make it right? Societies vary and they change. Nothing is carved in stone.

I mean, what do you actually gain from promising unswerving fidelity to a single partner? Love? I’m sorry, but if you think that love is conditional on sex or sex is conditional on love, then expect a stormy ride through life. Love is, or should be, something quite separate, and something you can feel for others without sex being involved. Sex? Maybe in the days before contraception, but if somebody is sufficiently manipulative to withhold sex in an effort to get you to promise fidelity then the odds are pretty high they’re going to be equally manipulative in other ways as well. My advice? Run away, fast. Safety? Not really. Statistically you might be less likely to catch something nasty if you stick to a single sexual partner, but we all ought to take sensible precautions anyway, and tailor them to the circumstances. Security? In theory, perhaps, but not in practise. I have great respect for anybody who will make a vow and keep it regardless, but they’re a rare breed. Most people are more than willing to give up on a vow the moment it becomes inconvenient. Or is it really just the opposite? Is it really all about insecurity, the fear that if you don’t tie your lover to yourself and yourself alone he or she will go off with the first person they meet who happens to have a bigger pairs of tits, or a more reliable erection, or makes better smoked salmon blini?

I strongly suspect that’s the reason; insecurity, which in turns breeds jealousy and the need to possess, which are hardly noble emotions. Worse still, people’s need for exclusivity breeds those very emotions, so that the situation feeds on itself. After all, if Sue expects Sam to be faithful she’s going to be badly hurt when she catches Sam with Sally, but if she doesn’t then she’s probably with Simon anyway, or she can join in with Sam and Sally too. One way she ends up with her face wet with tears, the other way she ends up with her face wet with Sally’s juices, surely a better outcome? But oh dear, what a slut, what a whore!

No, what fun. That’s the way I see it anyway, and the same goes if it was Sam, Simon and Sue, or all four of them for that matter, girl on girl and boy on boy, or whatever it might be. Do you think that’s wrong? Do you think that makes me a lesser person? If so, and the reason you do comes from some ancient text written by a mad old buzzard who’d spent too long in the desert, then I despair of you. Are you really content to live your life according to the precepts of bronze age patriarchs?

To be fair, not many people still believe that having sex for pleasure is immoral, but the concept is still deeply ingrained in our society, and that is what allows those whose egos are too fragile to escape from the straightjacket of monogamy to feel superior to those who take a more relaxed attitude. And if faithful marriage was the nirvana it’s held up to be then I beg to suggest that the divorce rate wouldn’t be quite so high. Sex doesn’t have to be sanctioned by some (imaginary) deity, and it doesn’t have to be part of some grand passion that excludes all others. Why not just have some fun, for fuck’s sake!?

A lot of people do, of course, but I do think it’s a great shame when so much pleasure is lost because of pointless self-restraint. Some people even have the idea that men and women can’t be friends because sex always gets in the way. What!? It’s nonsense anyway, because not only have many, many men and women had lifelong friendships without any sex coming into the equation at all, but plenty of men and women, and women and women and men and men, have friendships that include sex.

And why not? It makes perfect sense to me. If Simon’s thirsty and turns up at Sue’s house she’ll give him a glass of water, or perhaps a can of cold beer. So if he’s horny, why can’t she toss him off, or at the very least pull up her top for him while he does it? And if Sam walks in while they’re at it, so what? No harm done. Admittedly some partners would go berserk over the glass of water or even letting him into the house, but that only reinforces my