January 23rd, 2010 -- by Bacchus
She’s Ready For Her Cream Rinse
She’d heard good things about the new salon. Her friend Myrna told her to be sure to ask for “the special”. And, special it indeed was!
Via Kinky Delight.
Similar Sex Blogging:
The Sex Blog Of Record
January 22nd, 2010 -- by Bacchus
Your Guide To The Mushroom Forest
I’ve been reading Carnal Nation for awhile — they do the smart kind of PR, with not-too-frequent emails pointing me at specific headlines of potential interest — and thought I should mention today’s article by Midori. A Gentleman’s Guide To Online Sex offers a bunch of sensible-sounding tips for men looking for success at online dating:
Let’s start with your photo.
Do not use a photo of your cock, no matter how magnificent your tool is. So many guys do this that many women joke about these dating sites as being a “mushroom forest.” They want to meet a man–the whole package. The ones who want just the cock already have a drawerful in sizes that frighten horses. Anyway, true men of mystery shroud their schlongs in foreplay and hints of devastating skill that drive women nuts with anticipation.
Do not use captured images from your computer cam. The screen light makes you look ill and it screams, “I have no friends to take my photo.” Unless you’re really good at self-portraits, do not take your own photo in a mirror. The angle makes any belly look big and legs stumpy. Not flattering.
Photos that women find attractive show a guy’s face. If the musculature of shoulders, arms and pectorals are visible, that’s even better. If the photo shows him in some outdoorsy activity, that’s a big plus. If you’re not a big jock, at least get a shot taken while throwing a Frisbee to the dog a few rounds. Yes, you can crop the dog out.
These suggestions really ought to be read in concert, however, with the hard data from OkCupid. Their math gnomes are Violet Blue approved and scary-good with statistics, and they claim that the “no self-shot photos” advice is not good: “We were very surprised to discover that for both genders, self-shot pictures are more successful than average.”
January 20th, 2010 -- by Bacchus
What, She Worry?
Remember the stupid “vanishing G-spot” story everybody got all excited about two weeks ago? Well, I am reliably informed that when the cutting-edge social commentators on The View got their fingers firmly on the story, Barbara Walters opined as follows:
“Women should be happy about the study that says it doesn’t exist — it’s one less thing to worry about.”
January 20th, 2010 -- by Bacchus
Martha Stewart Working A Stripper Pole
Speaking of fetish fuel as we were, does anybody out there have “a professional homemaker” fetish? OK, maybe a “female ex-convict” fetish? You know you want her!
And now, you can have her, working a stripper pole on her TV show to help promote a stripper-moves exercise class:
Even if you don’t have a specific Martha Stewart fetish, you’ve got to approve of the idea behind the thing. By any calculation I can imagine, every additional woman in America who learns some stripper moves is a net gain for the Gross National Hedonic Product.
Similar Sex Blogging:
January 19th, 2010 -- by Bacchus
Kia’s Experiment
@MollyRen: “Think the email messages you get on dating sites suck? It’s worse if you’re black.”
Not something I’d considered. Despite having practiced a long list of internet follies, I’ve never actually seriously attempted to use a dating site. My impression is that the experience sucks for pretty much everybody. So, mass suckage. Which people wade through the way they wade-through any other necessary-but-unpleasant process (like, say, moving apartments or finding a job).
But just because it sucks for everybody doesn’t mean it can’t suck worse for some than it does for others.
Meet real Kia and fake Kia:
Yes, boys and girls, Kia put up more or less the same profiles, two of them, using her friend Erin’s picture (“Erin. So cute. White.” on one, and her own (“Me. Cute…like a cabbage-patch kid. Black.”) on the other. Hilarity (of the “laugh because it beats punching holes in drywall” variety) ensues.
One man’s assessment — rare for you to see here, because I am a big believer in the “all women are beautiful” school of thought — is that Kia speaks fairly when she uses “cute” to describe both herself and her friend Erin. Neither picture shows a movie-actress Great Beauty, but I’m seeing two friendly-looking people both of whom are squarely in the middle of the bell curve of human attractiveness.
People, it’s rough out there. Try and take care of each other, okay?
January 18th, 2010 -- by Bacchus
Fetish Fuel In Life Magazine, 1939
Bondage Blog has a great piece this morning featuring a pretty girl being shrink wrapped, in a latex balloon. In 1939. By a meat packing company. In the pages of Life magazine, in front of God and everybody and your prissy great-aunt Beatrix.
Granted, treating girls like meat was probably uncontroversial back in 1939. But what fascinates me is the fetish fuel question. In 2010, this is fetish fuel of the highest octane. Bondage Blog rattled off six or seven fetishes it touches on, and I could add several more without a strain. (Lingerie, breath control…) But was it obvious fetish fuel then? Was this a bit of clever marketing by kinky bastards who knew how to get a press release covered by Life, which in turn knew that it could publish the kinkiest shit in front of Aunt Beatrix and everybody just by playing dumb and keeping a straight face?
Or was it, in all innocence, the “gosh-gee-whiz this is how you’ll be getting your beef” celebration of marching technology it presents itself as? Were people really that innocent in 1939? I find that very hard to believe.
Complicating all this is the fact that fetishes evolve over time, and I’m not aware of anybody who has tracked those evolutions in any rigorous way. When did rubber even become a fetish material? (I know it was well established as such by the time John Willie started publishing his Bizarre magazine in the late 1940s.)
Similar Sex Blogging:
January 17th, 2010 -- by Bacchus
Making It With The Wee Fairy People
In the comments to the last post, Adele Haze betrayed the direction of her thoughts with the following musing:
I wouldn’t say no to a fairy. :) (As long as he or she were compatible in size, I have to say; Tinkerbell wouldn’t quite do it.)
My mind instantly flashed to the possibilities, helped along in part by memories of some art by the internet-famous Julius Zimmerman. And, although Mr. Zimmerman is too smart to name his wee fairy woman by a name that might unleash the feared attack lawyers at major media companies, he’s drawn some pictures that illustrate sexual possibilities I’m not convinced Adele had thoroughly considered when she made her comment. I had to rummage into some of the darker corners of one of my old USB hard drives, but the quest was successful:
Of course, fairy girls are notoriously mischievous, if not downright naughty. Thus, there’s likely to be the problem of discipline to consider. Adele might start, I imagine, with a spanking:
Another thing fairy girls are — by definition — is flighty. Spankings or no spankings, fairy affections never last very long. And when some man comes along, you just know that an affectionate fairy will have to try him out, compatible in size or not:
Similar Sex Blogging:
