|
|
The Sex Blog Of Record
March 16th, 2017 -- by Bacchus
Over the last couple of months I wrote several articles for the blog at the erotic stories site Noveltrove, and I just realized that the articles never got a mention here, although I did announce them on Twitter. So, to make up for the lack, here are some links to catch you up. The first article is my latest take on sex blog history, and the other two are reviews of some of the internet’s most ancient and comprehensive collections of adult stories:
Noveltrove has been a joy to work with, and if you like what I do here at ErosBlog, you should check out not just my articles there, but the entire site, where they are building their own erotic story community just exactly the way they want it to be.
Similar Sex Blogging:
March 15th, 2017 -- by Bacchus
For the most part I don’t buy into those agrarian visions of utopia in which we all do the low-carbon squat on our own patches of land, scratching out artisanal legumes and goat cheese while somehow managing to maintain a culture worth mentioning. But if this slavic vision of some lucky fellow’s farmwife is not telling us lies, maybe that life wouldn’t entirely suck:
The photo proved hard to source and may have a porn origin I didn’t stumble upon, but it is currently to be found in a variety of dubious social-share sites with metadata hinting at a might-be-genuine provenance in the nudist/amateur naked-gardener communities.
Similar Sex Blogging:
March 14th, 2017 -- by Bacchus
Artist unknown.
Similar Sex Blogging:
March 13th, 2017 -- by Bacchus
People, Kate from Whores Of Yore is here with some sad news:
I am sure you have heard this one; Victorian doctors invented the vibrator to masturbate women to ‘hysterical paroxysm’ (orgasm) because they had been finger banging so many patients in an effort to cure them of their hysteria, that frankly, their arms ached. We love this story. I love this story. Hollywood loved this story so much that the film 2011 film, Hysteria, was based entirely on this story. So it is with a heavy heart that I have to tell you, this really is just a story.
Like all debunkings, her evidence is mostly in the negative; what she’s got is absence of evidence where we’d expect to find it:
Not only is there no known mention of Doctors and vibrators in Victorian pornography, there is also no mention of it in the work of the early and pioneering sexologists. Iwan Bloch, Havelock Ellis, Richard von Kraft-Ebing and Freud meticulously catalogued every fetish, paraphilia and known expression of sexual behaviour, but not one of them mention doctors, vibrators and orgasm. Ellis and Bloch even describe some women deriving sexual pleasure from sewing machines and beetroot, but there is no mention of a vibrator. Fifty years later, in his seminal Behaviour in the Human Female (1953), Alfred Kinsey does not mention vibrators in his lengthy and comprehensive chapters on female masturbation.
She ranges widely and eruditely through the available evidence, but nowhere does she find evidence for the medicalization of female orgasm, much less of its mechanization in a medical context.
Similar Sex Blogging:
March 12th, 2017 -- by Bacchus
Back in 2015 we shared Beauty Revealed, a unique 1828 self-portraiture of artist Sarah Goodridge’s breasts that she gifted to Daniel Webster. Now in A Relationship Revealed, author Cassandra Good gives us considerable analysis of what that says (or doesn’t) about the relationship between Goodridge and Webster:
Goodridge traveled to Washington in 1828 to give Webster the unusual image soon after Webster’s wife died. It is possible that with Webster now single, Goodridge felt more comfortable acknowledging an existing or budding sexual attraction. Goodridge could have easily painted a conventional self-portrait miniature to give to Webster on that 1828 visit, knowing that even such a gift would signify to him (and anybody who became aware of the gift) a romantic relationship. But the work she created and named “Beauty Revealed” was groundbreaking both in terms of art and social norms. This miniature, too, could be held close, but it was openly sexual. It clearly attested to an erotic and possibly sexual relationship between Webster and Goodridge.
…
We can only speculate about what this image meant to Goodridge and Webster. The gift of only a part of her body, one that is both sexual and maternal, might have gestured to Goodridge’s continuing command over her own body. As a friend or even lover, Webster did not have the unfettered access to her body that a husband would. Goodridge could choose what to reveal to him, and how much to give. But for all the sexual intimacy of this image, it still appears that the pair’s relationship was primarily one of friendship. It seems unlikely that the pair considered marrying. Goodridge would have had to give up her artistic career, independence, and home in Boston. Less than two years after his wife’s death, Webster married a woman fifteen years his junior, but his friendship with Goodridge continued another two decades. They were rarely in the same place, so much of their relationship would have been conducted through letters and was thus by necessity not at most times a physical one. The miniature’s revelation is thus all the more surprising.
Similar Sex Blogging:
March 11th, 2017 -- by Bacchus
Back behind the ferns, there’s plenty of pussy to be found. And always has been, if you knew when and where to look! Via Vintage Lust:
Similar Sex Blogging:
March 10th, 2017 -- by Bacchus
If, like me, you’ve been puzzled by the rise of “cuck” as a sort of all-purpose insult among the American alt-right, you might have been focusing too closely on its sexual connotations, and especially on its origins in the word “cuckold”. This could be an especially easy mistake to make if your exposure to cuckoldry has primarily been to cuckoldry-as-a-porn-genre. When a political partisan cries “cuck!” in 2017, it’s an entirely different insult he’s making. He’s making an insult about power, which may be the source of your confusion.
Let’s put this in terms that might be easier to understand. There’s an old saying among poker players. At every poker table, there’s a chump. When you sit down, look around. If you can’t spot the chump, the chump might be you.
What does this have to do with cucks? Well, let’s listen to Jessica Crispin explaining Why They Need The Cucks at The Baffler:
In the mythology of 4chan, there are many different kinds of men: the snobby alpha males and the wronged beta males, for starters, and then a thousand variations from there. Cucks are considered the worst of the lot: soft, overripe men who have lost their power and control, like failed presidential candidate Jeb Bush or any man who shows an interest in feminism.
That the word “cuckold,” fusty and ringing of Shakespeare, was first brought back into popular discourse via a category of pornographic fetish videos is less important than you would think. Those videos won’t teach us anything we don’t already know.
…
The categories of embattled manhood now trafficked by the cuck-trashing, immigrant-bashing men of Breitbart or 4chan are shifting but ultimately exacting; they obsess over finer and finer distinctions. Their aim is not to elevate one idealized version of masculinity, but to break masculinity into a more perfect pecking order, so almost everyone can look down a level at the scum below. This new order relies on the traditional markers of manly achievement — a girlfriend, sexual partners, money, power, and, most importantly, control — but none of those matter as much as the act of division itself. It’s a coping strategy. Yes, the 4chan men like to make jokes about living in their parents’ basements, but those jokes are only funny if they can point to someone even lower than themselves.
Here, then, is the task of the twenty-first-century American man: making hierarchies that don’t put him at the bottom. The bottom is where the cucks are — because “cuck,” in its current incarnation, is an insult aimed not at men who are betrayed by women (or even men who are betrayed by women and really, really like it), but at men who don’t have anyone to control.
That’s it, then. Can you spot the cuck at the table? No? Then the cuck might be you — especially if you don’t have anybody to control. Darn!
Similar Sex Blogging:
|
|
