October 13th, 2016 -- by Bacchus
I never thought I’d mention this name on ErosBlog, but it’s important! Yesterday we learned than Rush Limbaugh actually understands consent:
You know what the magic word, the only thing that matters in American sexual mores today is? One thing. You can do anything, the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything, as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is? Consent. If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it’s perfectly fine. Whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there’s no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police.
Of course I don’t think our still-emerging social consensus on the importance of consent is really a left/right issue, especially given that there are economic notions tied up in that ancient false dichotomy that are entirely irrelevant to the consent discussion. No, I think it’s more of a generational thing. The kids (most of them) are all right, it’s the people between my generation and that of the Orange Menace who are still struggling with the new primacy of consent as the overriding ethical value to be considered in evaluating sexual conduct.
Similar Sex Blogging:
October 12th, 2016 -- by Bacchus
Spanking Blog brings us this vintage entry from the category of “as bad as things seem today, they used to be a lot worse”:
Apparently there was a time when a woman couldn’t even pray without a big creepy man menacing her from behind…
The artist is not known, but if I had to take a wild stab at guessing, I’d go with Thomas Rowlandson. (I am very much hoping this bad guess will stimulate someone to come along and set me right.)
Similar Sex Blogging:
October 11th, 2016 -- by Bacchus
I found this excellent illustration of the Kinsey Scale floating around on Twitter without attribution. So I did a little research. Turns out the artist is Michael DiMotta, and if you like it, you can buy prints!
Similar Sex Blogging:
October 10th, 2016 -- by Bacchus
This is most of an “ink and color on silk” hanging scroll painting by Japanese artist Kawanabe Kyôsai (1831 – 1889) that’s in the collection of the Honolulu Museum of Art. It reminds me of this post from a dozen years ago:
I will not bat at my male human’s family jewels while he is engaged in the act of mating with my female human, no matter how tempting the danglies are. My humans get mad and I might get free flying lessons.
In several of the places where this artwork appears on the internet, it’s tagged as “gay” or “homoerotic”. Given that we see nothing of the penetrated figure except feet and legs, I wonder whether this is simply the natural tendency of the taggers to see the scene they wanted to see in an ambiguous work of art, or whether it’s art-historian stuff based on evidence extrinsic to the work?
Similar Sex Blogging:
October 9th, 2016 -- by Bacchus
Given that mendacious claims about the things men routinely say to each other have recently become central to what passes for political discourse in this country, I am moved to share my highly individual impressions and experiences. The disclaimer here is that I am pushing fifty, I live in red-state heck, and I don’t know many men who are a great deal younger than myself, although I know many who are older. Mine is a small slice of American male life, not any kind of representative sample.
But here’s how man-to-man conversations about women have tended to break down over my lifetime:
- Nothing gets said about women that wouldn’t be said in their presence: a bare majority of conversations, call it 51%-plus.
- Things are said about women that wouldn’t be said in their presence, but not sexual things; examples would be open discussion about how a relationship is going, indirect guy banter that that boils down updating each other on relationship statuses without openly addressing those questions, or whining and commiseration that parses to “bitches be crazy” with varying degrees of affection: maybe 30% of conversations.
- Sexual talk (possibly frank but usually indirect) that is basically about who is getting any, is it any good, and is it “worth” the various costs, be they financial, emotional, or measured in increments of lost personal autonomy: perhaps 10% of conversations.
- “Locker room” type talk about women not present or in view, concerning whether she’s hot, exactly which parts of her are hot, who would like to do what with her, who wouldn’t touch that with your dick: a maximum of 5% of conversations, and that’s stretching it. This 5% of conversations is objectifying but the underlying fantasies being shared are consensual; the often-ludicrous assumption is that the women under discussion would be up for it, and there’s no predatory overtone except to whatever arguable extent that objectification itself is predatory. This is also the first part of the breakdown where the conversations are likely to be initiated by a fairly small subset of one’s male acquaintances; absolutely “not all men” want to have these conversations but it’s fairly normal to play along with the ones who do, especially when they are of higher status or have economic power in your life.
- “Locker room” talk as above, only with explicit rape-culture added, and more often concerning women who are in view but not in earshot. Less “I’d like to fuck her in the ass” and more “I’d like to catch her in a dark alley.” Heavy objectification (“look at those tits walking down the street!”) and often violence (“sure she’ll talk to you, just slap her face to get her attention”) and rape “jokes” (acknowledging and dismissing as irrelevant the certainty that the women mentioned wouldn’t be up for it) feature prominently. This is a tiny percentage of all conversations — 1%, maybe 2% maximum — and when these conversations happen they are invariably initiated by “that guy”, one of the several special kinds of assholes that every man knows. I have also once or twice also encountered cliques of men (in my cases these were workplace cliques in blue-collar workplaces) where really knuckle-dragging sex talk was used to establish and demarcate in-group and out-group boundaries. In a group where two or more men are enthusiastically talking like this a higher-status man will usually change the subject or explicitly tell them to knock it off; if they are the higher status men, others will usually separate themselves from the conversation as soon as practicable.
For calibration purposes, the currently-notorious bus conversation between Donald Trump and Billy Bush falls squarely within the bounds of that 2% of conversations in the fifth category; however it’s among the mildest of such conversations.
I don’t know “all men”; I just know the men that I know. These are my impressions. Make of them what you will.
Similar Sex Blogging:
October 9th, 2016 -- by Bacchus
I’m sure this must be a very posh private school, because the back stairs where Pandora sits taking naughty selfies for her boyfriend are clean and in good repair:
One small flaw in Pandora’s program: she does not realize the headmaster is watching!
You know where all this is leading:
From Dreams of Spanking.
Similar Sex Blogging:
October 8th, 2016 -- by Bacchus
A few years ago there was a brief discussion here on ErosBlog about men wearing strap-on dildos so that they could double-penetrate their partners. Here’s a detail from a Hanz Kovacq erotic novel page showing that scheme in operation:
Similar Sex Blogging:
