|
|
Sex Blogging, Gratuitous Nudity, Kinky Sex, Sundry Sensuality
December 8th, 2013 -- by Bacchus
It’s vanishingly rare for any sex blogger to link to another sex blogger’s sex toy review. The very best of such reviews are at risk of being boring, because they swim in the same sea as a trillion crap reviews banged out by uninspired affiliate marketers. Thus there’s pressure not to blog “too much” about sex toys; and why would you blog about somebody else’s sex toy review when you’re limiting your own blogging on sex toy topics?
Well, in my case, the answer is, when the review in question is by Ephiphora and she’s reviewing a gifted used Sybian:
I am in disbelief as I unbox this toy, because I still don’t believe that someone would send this to me, ever, let alone for free…
But there it is. A Sybian. In all its hulking glory. Safe and sound, with the grotesque attachments neatly folded into a ziploc. It’s smaller than I imagined, but still quite a beast. It’s heavy, it’s loud, and the puny “handles” on the sides are laughable. I don’t know where I’m going to store it, and my boyfriend will never forgive me for acquiring yet another huge sex accessory.
Too bad. If someone offers you a Sybian, you say yes. This is law. You do not turn down a Sybian.
It turns out that the story behind Epiphora’s used Sybian is tangentially related to my post about Outliving Your Sex Toys. Epiphora’s actual review is about as you’d expect (the Sybian is big, it’s awkward, using it is something of a chore). But Epiphora plans to take good care of the beast:
Thank you, anonymous reader, for thinking of me as the recipient of your unwanted Sybian. I will take good care of it. In fact, I shall station it in my living room and cajole people into trying it when they come over, Howard Stern style. I figure it’s the right thing to do.
Indeed.
Similar Sex Blogging:
December 7th, 2013 -- by Bacchus
News flash: people on the internet are watching you fap.
Or, well, maybe not. You would never masturbate at your computer, would you? No, of course not. But is there nothing you’ve ever done in “view” of the webcam that you’d prefer to be kept private?
Do you even know if your computer has a webcam? If you never Skype, you might not have noticed it. Back in the day it was a sphere the size of a tennis ball and you couldn’t miss it, but these days, it’s just a little glass circle or rectangle on the bezel that wraps around your screen, usually top center. An awful lot of computers (desktops and laptops alike) come with them as standard equipment.
People have long known that it’s theoretically possible for malware tools to hijack their webcams and allow remote viewing of whatever the cam can see. The paranoid, or “careful” if you prefer, are old hands at sticking a bit of tape (or a torn Post-It note, or whatever) over the camera’s tiny eye. Now comes word that at least one police agency is fairly routinely targeting suspects by attacking them with malware that can turn on the camera, while leaving the indicator LED off and as dark as your shifty little soul:
The FBI has been able to covertly activate a computer’s camera — without triggering the light that lets users know it is recording — for several years, and has used that technique mainly in terrorism cases or the most serious criminal investigations, said Marcus Thomas, former assistant director of the FBI’s Operational Technology Division in Quantico, now on the advisory board of Subsentio, a firm that helps telecommunications carriers comply with federal wiretap statutes.
Of course, anything the FBI can do (supposedly they’re pretty selective about picking targets for their cams malware, and their process is reported to be warrant-driven) another less scrupulous attacker can also do. It’s one thing to know that an attack is technically possible, it’s another to know that it’s been developed into software that’s in routine use. That suggests a level of practicality from which we may fairly speculate that other potential attackers have developed and are using similar software. It’s not just the FBI, you can count on that. Voyeuristic hackers, rogue security agencies with a data-hoarding fetish, would-be sextortionists, anybody who thinks you have business secrets worth stealing, technically-adept stalker exes… Let’s face it, the list of potential black-hats out there is as long as your imagination wants to make it.
Of course, you’re a responsible computer user who never clicks a suspicious link and has a good security software package on your computer. So you’re safe from malware, right?
Well…
We can hope. You can hope. But we’re all human, we all make mistakes, and your antivirus software may not be perfect either. It may be less robust than you’d hope, or it may be coded badly, or it might even be designed to protect you less well than you want because surveillance agencies might have influenced the people who coded it. It’s better than nothing, but it’s far from a guarantee.
There’s really only one way to be certain your own camera is not watching you as you read this. Just put a bit of tape over that lens when you’re not using it. Some will think you paranoid, but others will understand you’re just being sure.
Once upon a time, I would have said that people who taped their webcams were either tinfoil-hatters, or they were being extremely cautious because they were facing extreme threat parameters for whatever reason. But somewhere in the last few years, the world has changed on us, and my opinion has changed along with it. I now consider it a routine computer-security best practice for every citizen. You should do it, if you haven’t already. C’mon, it only takes about ten seconds.
Done? Good. Now you know nobody is watching you (with that camera). There, isn’t that better?
Similar Sex Blogging:
December 6th, 2013 -- by Bacchus
Six years ago I blogged about a certain sexually suggestive gesture. Now, in this more enlightened age of the ubiquitous Tumblr .gif, I’ve got a better example of it to show:
From Too Sexy.
Similar Sex Blogging:
December 5th, 2013 -- by Bacchus
Synchronized swimming would have a much bigger following if everybody did it like these three vintage beauties:
Similar Sex Blogging:
December 4th, 2013 -- by Bacchus
Photographer Barbara Nitke, on the tricks of performing oral sex for the camera in the 1980s:
I photographed Little Oral Annie for days going down on all of the biggest guys in the business. She made it look effortless, but I noticed that she always a put large gob of Vaseline in her mouth just before they started shooting. I finally got up the courage to ask her about it, and was so nervous that I ran out of the room when she offered to give me a lesson.
December 4th, 2013 -- by Bacchus
We’re barreling down the home stretch to Christmas, so if you didn’t stock up on sexy stocking stuffers during last week’s Black Friday sale, you should now pay heed to The Stockroom’s annual Sexmas sale. When searching for sex toys that look great coming out of a stocking, I always recommend art glass. This year, maybe something in an anatomically-correct Helmet Head butt plug?
These are like movie-theater popcorn buckets; they come in large, extra-large, 2x, and 3x sizes. Don’t let your eyes get bigger than your bottom!
Similar Sex Blogging:
December 3rd, 2013 -- by Bacchus
From Evy by Peter Riverstone.
Similar Sex Blogging:
December 3rd, 2013 -- by Bacchus
This article at Wired details the latest bizarre chapter in Google’s censorship of its Android mobile device ecosystem. There’s a new list of bad words baked into the latest Android version, and just as with the bizarre censorship of the search suggestions Google makes when you’re typing a search into its web page, Android will refuse to autocomplete anything on this new edition of the bad words list:
There’s no “sex” at the Googleplex.
Type or swipe the word on the latest version of Android’s Google Keyboard — or for that matter “intercourse,” “coitus,” “screwing” or even “lovemaking” — and the web giant’s predictive algorithm will offer no help.
These are just a few examples from an obsessive, and often baffling list of more than 1,400 English words that Google has quietly deemed inappropriate for Android users.
…
Taken as a whole, Google’s list suggests not only a surprising discomfort with sexuality, but also reproductive health and undergarments. Words like “panty,” “braless,” “Tampax,” “lactation,” and “preggers” are censored along with sexual health vocabulary like “uterus” and “STI.”
“I try to Swype-type the word ‘condom’ and I get ‘condition’ or ‘confusion,’” said Jillian York, a spokesperson for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “There is no context in which that makes any sense. Grow up, Android.”
It’s trivial now, but pay attention. Just how much do we want to allow our language and culture to be shaped by invisible “protective” algorithms built into our devices at a deep software level? To whom, precisely, are we granting this new power over our memetic space, and why are we granting it?
Similar Sex Blogging:
December 2nd, 2013 -- by Bacchus
Instead of fulminating in a ranty thrown-together blog post on Wednesday as I did, tireless warrior for civil liberties Jennifer Granick took two extra days and wrote a serious, detailed, well-researched think piece, with citations, like a grownup:
NSA SEXINT is the Abuse You’ve All Been Waiting For
The important thing to keep in mind as media apologists attempt to minimize the story:
There are only six targets discussed in the paper. These six are worthwhile “exemplars,” according to the documents. But NSA profiles more than six people, we don’t know how many more, and we don’t know why.
Her conclusion:
In a mass surveillance ecosystem, the scale and scope on which this kind of activity can take place is unprecedented. Once it collects information about hundreds of millions of people in mass, “dossiers” of potentially embarrassing information — or blackmail quality secrets — dirt on anyone is just a few searches away. Intelligence operatives can secretly tar anyone, seemingly at will, since the NSA has the technological capacity, and no one has identified a law which would, if followed, intercede. These abilities, never mind the will to use them, are incompatible with individual freedom and democracy.
Similar Sex Blogging:
December 2nd, 2013 -- by Bacchus
It’s awesome that this photograph is so suggestive of a public blowjob without actually showing the deed. For all we actually know, Veruca James is just hunkered down out of the wind while she adjusts her lipstick. Only, I don’t think so:
Similar Sex Blogging:
|
|
