Here we are, these wondrous, exceedingly complex beings, a mysterious mix of the material world and something far more powerful. Our sexual energy, life force, pulsating with vitality, rich and complex, literally the force behind all of our creativity. 

And with all of this potential, we commune for "sex" by following a short, worn out script - foreplay, male ejaculation, refractory period.

We collectively define "sex" as a standardized ejaculation-oriented experience. 

One reason we're stuck with this script is old. In the 1960s Masters and Johnson opened the mainstream conversation about sexual expression by creating charts, still in use today, showing ejaculation as the goal of sexual expression.

Another reason we're stuck in this script is current. Almost every male in the U.S. watches mainstream porn. Males ages 8 to 25 have had NO other source for sex education, and older males not much. Mainstream porn follows the tragically boring script we are all suffering through in the bedroom.

Is this why men have erection and ejaculation “dysfunctions”?

Instead of exploring the delicious potential of creative erotic energy and desire hiding deep inside every man, for most men in the U.S. the goal is usually to "perform" to the old script. 

It's no surprise that many, if not most, male bodies subjected to this monotony go on strike!  

If you have ever been disappointed in your erection or ejaculation, your body may be blessing you with the news that it's bored to ... death.  Your body is begging you to change.  It doesn’t want to do it anymore.

Is this why we see men as sexual predators?

In the #metoo environment, men naturally fear being called a predator, or being one. 

But if our vision of "sex" is a simple activity scripted around ejaculation, is there any room to envision the other person as predator? 

Or the man as anything other than a single-focused beast of prey?

Is this why women are experiencing an epidemic of “low desire”?

Root cause resolution seems like a popular concept these days. 

According to the Mayo Clinic: "Low sexual desire is the most common of female sexual dysfunctions and involves a lack of sexual interest and willingness to be sexual." 

Could it be that the root cause of "low sexual desire" for U.S. women is the stale script? 

Maybe low desire for this predictable choreography is healthy! 

How many times can we do the same exact dance to the same exact song while maintaining "healthy desire" for it?

Is this why women have become “caretakers” in bed?

Esther Perel names "caretaking" as the biggest sexual problem for women in the U.S.. 

Is anything else possible for women when our current cultural definition of "sex" = an ejaculation-centered activity? 

Maybe this is how for many the entire realm of sexual expression has come down to: "did you come?" "why not?" "what can I do to help?" "what's wrong with you?" "what's wrong with me?" 

Or are both men and women actually totally healthy?

While males are being called predators, their bodies are screeching to a halt.  While females are being called caretakers, their bodies don't even want to get up to see who's at the door anymore.

… Sounds healthy. 

Perhaps our bodies are not responding because the old script no longer merits the same response.  

Maybe we should change the phrase "sexual dysfunction" to "healthy response" to a pervasive outdated sexual practice.

It is not anyone's fault. Our sex culture has developed over centuries, like all patriarchy. There is little use in blaming someone because they have adapted to mainstream culture. 

A more useful approach may be to ask "what else is possible here?" What if the next time you decide to express yourself sexually, you begin by asking "what is possible here?"

This question can open us to a lifelong journey of experiential learning. 

I invite you to consider these questions: Who do I want to be sexually? Am I fine with the old script? Would I prefer to find my authentic path to sexual expression and pleasure? What do I really want for myself and my partners? 

What is possible here?