|
|
The Sex Blog Of Record
Saturday, February 27th, 2021 -- by Bacchus
The Nymph and I have been home (except for curbside grocery pickups) for a year now. So I have not had much personal incentive to keep abreast of the top thinking on harm-reduction-based safer sex advice during the pandemic. Fortunately, we live in a world with skilled professionals who do these things for us:
More great info on sex and Covid-19
Last week we got the excellent Covid-19 safer sex guide from the San Francisco Department of Public Health. This week we have one more: the Bay Area [Sex] Worker Support teamed up with UCSF, the Public Health Justice Collective, and the National Harm Reduction Coalition to create an incredible Covid-19 Harm Reduction Guide for Sex Workers. It benefits everyone, not just sex workers. Read it if you are (or want to be) sexually active during our trying times.
Paragraph with links is by Violet Blue, from her latest pandemic roundup. Her weekly roundups of cybersecurity and pandemic news are incredibly valuable, and her patrons at any level can get email notification when they come out. Sadly for this audience, the sex news roundups on her blog seem not to have been happening recently.
Similar Sex Blogging:
Thursday, September 10th, 2015 -- by Bacchus
#Pornocalypse. It comes for us all, yadda yadda. But what is it, really?
When I first started talking about #pornocalypse, I had a very specific observation to share about the corporate/financial life cycle of internet companies. In the typical cases, internet ventures are adult-friendly when their service is new, and so they enjoy a robust pulse of early traffic from people playing with porn on their platform. Then, as a service/company grows, there comes an irresistible financial pressure to “sanitize” the product, kicking off all the porn so that nobody in corporate management has to confront their own hypocrisy or the squeamishness of financial counterparties when the company seeks to go public, get acquired, or raise additional capital.
Although I first used #pornocalypse to talk about the distinctive pulse of porn bans and adult-industry user purges that we see at the “cashing in” stage of an internet venture’s corporate life cycle, I’ve come to realize that that’s not the whole story. For instance, it’s growing more common for companies to plan their “cashing in” phase from day one, so they may ban all the porn ab initio, giving up the helpful porn influence on the early growth phase in exchange for less hassle during the cashing-out phase. Nowadays it’s harder to tie porn-hostile corporate behavior to the formerly-notorious moment when prudish investment bankers would start looking aghast at all the porny traffic. So I’ve come to use #pornocalypse more loosely, as a handy shorthand for any porn-hostile moves by internet companies.
All that’s by way of preface. This post is about a particular pornocalyptic dodge that we’re seeing more frequently in recent years. Along with content deletions and user bans, a growing trend is to fuck with discovery. The porn is there — and the terms of service may even allow it to stay there — but the search and discovery tools won’t show it to anybody. Welcome to invisibility, you porny motherfuckers.
For a early example, consider this post from 2011, in which I visually documented how Google’s then-new(ish) autocomplete service (sometimes called Google Instant) considered Violet Blue too porny to suggest when suggesting searches on the fly:
I was unaware when I posted that back in 2011 that 2600.com had already sussed out and published a long list of the keywords that Google Instant was blocking. It turns out that Violet was in astonishingly good company! Here are the names of actual humans I was able to identify on the list:
How did Violet Blue get on this Google blue list? Well, it’s not clear; but it might become clearer if you take out all of the porn performers and the pop-culture celebrities. Ogle this shorter list:
I don’t know everything about all of the people on that list, but I see a lot of sex educators, and I know that at least three of them (four, with Violet) have been in the past or remain to this day closely associated with Good Vibrations, the famous female-friendly San Francisco sex store with the educational mission at goodvibes.com. Hey, do you suppose Good Vibrations was also on the ban list? Well, duh; as surely as bears shit in woods, there they are:
My theory: at some point, an anonymous blue-list technician decided to give Good Vibrations and its whole crew the naughty words treatment. Why? I doubt we’ll ever know. But it may have been well before Google acquired and implemented this particular blue list; after all, Violet was gone from Good Vibrations after 2006. (The short selection of megafamous porn performers also seemed curiously dated even in 2010, suggesting again that the list may have been in circulation for a long time before Google got it.)
By now we understand that there’s a long-established ecosystem of blue list sharing among tech companies and blue-list technicians. More evidence: in 2012 the CEO of Shutterstock (a stock photography site) posted to GitHub a list of 342 “dirty, naughty, obscene, and otherwise bad words” that starred Violet’s name as the only person on the blue list. Although by then the vintage porn stars and Violet’s compatriots in the Good Vibrations San Francisco sex mafia had been scrubbed, the list shares clear ancestry with the Google list as exposed by 2600.com. Consider the persistence of “leather straight jacket” on both lists. Not only is this an oddly specific item for a naughty words list, it’s doubly erroneous; the item in question is most often written as “straitjacket” (one word, no “g”). How likely is it that “leather straight jacket” got put on both lists without those lists having a common source?
The only conclusion is that blue-list engineers have been passing around and sharing their blue lists for a long time, and likely were were already doing so back when Google grabbed and implemented the list with Violet’s name on it. This process continues; the Shutterstock list at GitHub has been forked 112 times since 2012, which emphasizes to me that tech companies continue to seek, modify, and implement these blue lists in their products, sharing their efforts as they go.
Unfortunately for prudish tech companies, no such blue lists long survive contact with the enemy. (That would be us.) In the age of the hashtag, users get very creative about tagging the adult goodies they want to share and see. Thus did Instagram, which is famously porn-hostile, came in for a lot of ridicule this summer when its Long Guerrilla War On Porn got featured on Talking Points Memo:
But as many porn hashtags as there are, many more have been quietly erased by Instagram, revealing nothing when you search for them. Pop in #sex and you’re told “No posts found.” Ditto #adult, #stripper, #vagina, #penis, #cleavage. Even the Internet’s ultimate innuendo, the eggplant, wasn’t safe. You can still tag your posts with banned hashtags and emojis, but good luck finding your community within. Typo-laden tags have popped up to accommodate these arbitrary bans: #boobs is gone, but as I write this, #boobss has well over 600,000 posts; #adult’s spinoff #adule is quickly closing in on 100,000. The tag for #seduce may now be useless, but variants like #seduced and #seductivsaturday cropped up in its place–though it’s worth noting that in the weeks since I’ve been writing this article, #seductiv, the tag that brought me into this world to begin with, has vanished entirely, as has #boobss, #adule, and #eggplantparm, after BuzzFeed caught wind of the fact that the eggplant emoji was not searchable on the app. The goalposts on these hashtags have moved considerably: In 2012, Huffington Post reporter Bianca Bosker wrote about Instagram’s early porn community, but back then, the banned hashtags were far more intuitive: #instaporn, for instance, or #fuckme.
Some more light was shed on Instagram’s evolving war on hashtags after they caught a ton of flak from the body-positive community for banning #curvy from their search results. Of course they claimed it was an automated mistake, and later unblocked the #curvy hashtag after giving it an intensive human-driven curatorial scrubbing:
After a week of controversy, Instagram is unblocking the #curvy hashtag, effective Thursday afternoon.
Instagram first prevented users from searching for photos with the term last week, prompting a huge backlash from users and women’s advocacy groups who were outraged to see a term normally associated with body-positive messages removed from the site. A spate of replacement hashtags, including “curvee,” “bringcurvyback” sprang up to fill in the gap.
The problem was that the #curvy hashtag was being used for other reasons, said Nicky Jackson Colaco, Instagram’s director of public policy. Namely, pornography.
And the tag was overrun, she said. Instagram has protocols in place to flag when any term is being consistently associated with content that breaks the company’s terms of service. Jackson Colaco said that Instagram removes several tags every day when analysis from the company’s automated and human content filtering systems get reports from users that they’ve become a problem. And at some point last week, #curvy hit the tipping point.
…
As Instagram moves to restore the hashtag, it’s also taken the time to find new tools to help it better parse through the photos that its 300 million users post to the site every day. That means stepping up curation of the hashtag, particularly on sections of the service that highlight the “top posts” and “most recent” posts using the marker to make sure that no one looking at #curvy pictures gets an obscene surprise.
The discovery pornocalypse is also highly visible at Tumblr. Do they seriously think anybody will believe this negative search result?
Now, in Tumblr’s case, there’s a workaround. They’ll let you turn off the filtering. But study that page. Click the graphic for the full-sized version. Do you see a “These results are filtered” link that you can click to turn off the filter? You will look in vain for that. If you were sufficiently credulous, you might even come to believe that there’s no anal sex on Tumblr at all. That would seem to be the impression Tumblr wants to convey to the naive searcher. If you’re willing to believe that, Tumblr is delighted to let you believe it.
But what if you’re not quite that stupid? What if you’re looking at that screen and mumbling “Fuckers! I know you’ve got some anal in here somewhere! What do I have to do to see it?”
Well, look closely. Look double closely. Somewhere on that page there’s an icon, nine pixels wide by twelve pixels high. If you can find those 108 pixels, and and if you can guess what they mean, causing you to click upon them, then (and only then) Tumblr’s anal floodgates will open for you. Good luck!
Similar Sex Blogging:
Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013 -- by Bacchus
I’ve never met Violet Blue face-to-face, but we’ve had each others’ backs in the sex-blogging trade for more than a decade now, and I consider her a friend. So I was delighted to wake up to this romantic snapshot in her twitter feed this morning:
The adjacent tweet says the rest:
Her twitter feed has been full of happy stuff about this fellow for quite some time now, so it strikes me as good news indeed. Felicitations to the happy couple!
Similar Sex Blogging:
Saturday, June 23rd, 2012 -- by Bacchus
How come Kickstarter never seems to have projects like this to fund? Violet Blue responds to the headline “Desert boot camp helps teens beat addiction to internet porn” by writing:
An anti-porn “boot camp” in Utah for teen boys? Yup. So, who’s up for a paramilitary rescue mission? You know I’ve got the skills.
That would make a kickass comic book!
(Long-time readers will remember this is not the first time I’ve tried to encourage Violet Blue when she “proposes” some media-friendly adventure.)
Friday, July 15th, 2011 -- by Dr. Faustus
Facebook has been on my personal list of Things Infamous ever since they crushed Violet Blue’s porn-free, ToS-honoring “Our Porn, Ourselves” discussion group out of existence, so it was with some pleasure that I was able to note a column by Sheril Kirshenbaum up at Bloomberg today entitled “Blame Facebook for Your Divorce.”
Divorce is apparently declining among most age groups of Americans, but it has more than doubled for people over 50. There are many possible reasons for this but at least one researcher thinks that social networking might be one of the causes.
Nancy Kalish, a professor of psychology at California State University, Sacramento, suspects that online connections may lead to growing numbers of what she terms “accidental affairs,” meaning they involve people who don’t set out to have a physical or emotional relationship outside their marriage. Kalish studies couples who reunite after years apart.
Before there was an Internet, when someone wanted to track down a past love, he or she had to go through the effort of locating a friend or relative to make contact. “Unless they were single, divorced or widowed, they just didn’t typically do that,” Kalish told me.
But now there’s the possibility of better living through technology.
But now the ghosts of romance past are alive and well online, popping up on chat services and sending greetings on Facebook. In the 21st century, old friends are virtually at our fingertips, and a seemingly harmless email sent to someone with the innocent intention of “catching up” can quickly go further. Many of those who engage in accidental affairs tell Kalish that they had happy marriages before they strayed. “They still bear responsibility for the affairs, of course; no one made them write, call or meet in a hotel room,” Kalish said. “But these are probably people who would not have cheated years ago, even with a lost love.”
The column then devolves into some pop-psychological speculation.
Facebook might not care if it annoys Dr. Faustus, and probably they’re right not to care. But now I guess they’re going to have the the bloodhounds of family values snappin’ at their rear ends.
They’d have been better off siding with the angels to begin with and leaving Violet Blue’s group alone, so I say.
Thursday, February 3rd, 2011 -- by Bacchus
Yesterday the big internet news was that IAC, the company behind Match.com and Chemistry.com (two of the bigger online paid dating sites) had purchased OkCupid, which is perhaps the biggest of the free dating sites, and is a company that was famous for interesting data-driven blog posts about its users and (notoriously) about the business models and advertising claims of its paid-dating competitors, specifically including Match.com.
[Disclosure: IAC owns a metric ton of sites in the paid dating space, and I’m fairly sure some of them have advertised on ErosBlog at one time or another.]
OKCupid’s price tag? Fifty million bucks. That’s a lot of clams for an advertising-supported company, especially in an internet economy where all the smart people say that advertising-supported business models are in decline.
My first thought when I heard the news was “Wow, OkCupid really must have been cutting into their sales if the paid boys were willing to pay that much to take them out.”
My second thought — and I tweeted a version of it — was “Damn, no more hilarious blog posts lampooning the ridiculous advertising claims of the big paid dating sites.”
So you can imagine my amusement this morning to discover Violet Blue’s collection of links about this, which included the it-shouldn’t-be-surprising-news that OkCupid has already taken down its most notorious blog post about Match.com, the one called “Why You Should Never Pay For Online Dating” (link is to cached version), the one that started “Today I’d like to show why the practice of paying for dates on sites like Match.com and eHarmony is fundamentally broken, and broken in ways that most people don’t realize…”
The most amusing of Violet Blue’s links, however, is this the-lady-protesteth-too-much link from the New York Observer: OKCupid: We Didn’t Censor Our Match.com-Bashing Blog Post. In which OkCupid says, of course, something that doesn’t perfectly match the headline. That blog post? That old thing? Not censored, no, of course not. But, uh, dudes, they paid us fifty million bucks, it wasn’t exactly a secret what they were buying, you expected us not to give it to them? They didn’t have to spell it out for us, no, that would be crass:
Match.com didn’t ask OKCupid to take down the post, CEO Sam Yagan told The Observer, it was just the “common sense thing to do.”
“I know everyone wants to make a big deal out of this,” he said. “They didn’t tell us take it down. I wanted to do it. … We obviously believe in a free model but there are also paid models and I didn’t think [the post’s] continued existence served much of a purpose. People will say, ‘Oh my God, they’ve sold out and they’re censoring it,’ that’s fine. When we put our next blog post next week and keep being awesome and the product keeps being awesome and free, people will just realize they’re overreacting.”
Furthermore, the data that OKCupid gathered from Match.com’s public filings and press kit were not completely accurate, he said, which he realized once he saw the real data.
“Upon having more knowledge as we’ve gone through the process of getting to know Match and them getting to know us, some of the conclusions we drew are not quite as exaggerated as we made them out to be,” he said.
Not quite? Well, that’s a relief, then.
It will be very interesting to see, in the coming months, what happens to the free dating experience on OkCupid, and I invite people who are familiar with it (I’m not) to post here in the comments as that develops. My suspicion is that they will develop the site to function as a feeder to the paid sites, making the free experience less and less functional and more and more annoying, slowly and incrementally over time. I’m basing that on a cynical reading of this language from the buyout press release:
“We know that many people who start out on advertising-based sites ultimately develop an appetite for the broader feature set and more committed community, which subscription sites like Match.com and Chemistry.com offer, creating a true complimentary relationship between our various business models.”
And if they don’t develop that appetite now, we’re pretty sure that once Tarzan comes swinging across the screen selling auto insurance for the nine hundredth time, they might start. And all you’ve got to do is get rid of that pesky little “show once” cookie on the advertisement! Easy peasy…
Similar Sex Blogging:
Friday, December 31st, 2010 -- by Bacchus
I was going to do at least one Best of 2010 list today. And I still might. But today is starting to feel like a goof-off day. There is cheap sweet bubbly in my refrigerator and it is calling to me.
Fortunately, no worries. Other people — media-savvy people who are industrious enough to string more than three links together in a single blog post, unlike me, who am grown bone lazy — have been making flashy sexy 2010 retrospective lists like mad. And Violet Blue has rounded them all up for your convenience. Yippie kai yai, em effers!
(Er, she’s rounded up the lists. Not, so far as I know, the industrious people who made the lists. Just to be clear.)
Thursday, December 9th, 2010 -- by Bacchus
This is one of those strange cases where the factual circumstances surrounding what happened make it hard to work up any particular high dudgeon, but the implications of what happened are still unsettling to those of us who are zealous about our privacy.
Violet Blue provided the link to The Smoking Gun. And the story went like this:
A porn site operated out of the Philippines had a really boneheaded user chat setup with two critical features — you could use it without identifying yourself (reasonable enough, considered in isolation) and you could use it to swap files with other users. To this, apparently, was added the third “feature” — namely, that the owners of the site didn’t appear to be moderating or attempting to limit how this feature set was used or misused.
The result was, I suppose, inevitable. Random creeps began file swapping unsavory-looking files. The actual content of those files, we dunno — we have a link to an ICE affidavit characterizing them as child pornography, but then, these are agents of the same agency that prosecutes people for dirty Simpsons cartoons, so who the fuck knows?
So anyway, what happened was, an ICE agent noticed the file-swapping behavior and contacted the site administrators to ask for IP addresses of some of the file-swapping individuals. (Not stated, but implicit, is that since much of this chat was happening in private rooms or in person-to-person chats, the ICE agent was probably engaging in the swaps in order to be identifying targets of interest. Sometimes I think 90% of the alleged seedy underbelly of the internet is undercover agents of various powers attempting to entrap each other.)
The site administrators, it turned out, were wondrously cooperative. They didn’t just hand over some IP addresses upon request — they gave the ICE agent an administrative login, so he could monitor and log every chat and file and IP address on the site.
For 16 months.
Now, I hate the idea of child pornography as much as the next person, and if that had been my site, I’d have stamped out the feature that attracted the traders as soon as I began to comprehend what was happening on my site. Random unregistered strangers swapping who-knows-what files on my server? I’d much rather have cockroaches and bedbugs and snakes. {shudder-shudder-shudder} So, it never would have survived long enough for ICE to notice. Having a feature like that is just boneheaded and asking for trouble.
So, on the one hand, I’ve got no particular sympathies for that specific situation. But on the other hand, does anybody else get the heebie-jeebies, thinking about federal law enforcement running around compiling complete back-end site logs from all the various internet sites that people use?
Think about that, the next time you’re having some hot cyber in the chat room of the dating site of your choice. It could be that ICE is your admin, and your steamy sex chat is being logged — along with everything else happening on the site — for future analysis. Not because they got a warrant, but because they saw something, somewhere on the site, that they wanted a closer look at, and your admin said “Sure! Have a login and password.”
Friday, December 3rd, 2010 -- by Bacchus
Violet Blue has another post up in her ongoing blog conversation about the fashion industry using the visual language of kink. This one features two ridiculously overdressed ladies in a corral, standing imperiously over a trussed-up cowboy who is staked out with his legs apart and has just had a branding iron applied to his ass. Remarks Violet: “Tell me that if this photoset was gender-reversed, Jezebel wouldn’t implode.” (Cf. The Modern Empress.)
I couldn’t possibly speculate about that. But what I can do is share some horrible/wonderful female domination comic panels drawn by the late Eric Stanton, of which I was reminded by our humiliated cowboy victim of high fashion. These panels and pages (some of the panels below will expand to the full pages if you click ’em) come, I believe but cannot swear, from Stanton’s regular Stantoons publication. Sadly, I don’t have bibliographic information for you — there were a lot of Stantoons, and I don’t know which one this story was published in.
The story features a western sheriff named Sam. Sam’s a racist and shit-head, I think it’s safe to say; he’s got an Indian wife, name of Red Gazelle, but at one point in the comic he denies he’s her husband, because “we just had the Injun ceremony, and I just wanted your body.” As you can see, he doesn’t treat her very well, either:
It is pertinent at this time to remind our readers that Eric Stanton typically drew female domination comics. Stay tuned for a change in the fortunes of our female protagonist. In other words, don’t panic.
Skipping rapidly along to the good part, if you can call it that, Sam the Shithead Sheriff soon meets a brazen outlaw woman named Belle Star. At first he wants to arrest her for the reward, but he soon decides he’d rather seduce her. While doing so, he keeps Red Gazelle on the end of a rope and continues to treat her badly; she fumes and grows both angry and jealous. It doesn’t take long, meanwhile, for Sam’s natural lack of charm to become obvious to Belle:
So she thwacks him once upside the head with her riding crop, and in the peculiar nature of these femdom fantasies, he abruptly becomes her sniveling worm and abject slave.
Well! That instantly cures Red Gazelle of any jealously; she reasons that if he’s so weak, he’s not worth it. Now she’s just mad about the mistreatment. So she gets herself untied and joins in on the worm-stomping party. It doesn’t take long for her and Belle to decide to fire up the forge and avail themselves of the branding irons, either:
The reason his ass looks furry is that in one panel (not shown here) they spanked him with a cactus. Seriously.
They carry on with the irons for awhile:
The story’s a western, though, so eventually it draws to a close, and there’s a tender “they ride off into the sunset” scene. You might say this one is tenderer than most:
And, no, I do not know why Red Gazelle decided to keep him.
Similar Sex Blogging:
Monday, June 7th, 2010 -- by Bacchus
I got an email announcement of some sex toy summer specials in which I was pleased to see an astonishing discount on Violet Blue’s book Fetish Sex: An Erotic Guide for Couples:
Similar Sex Blogging:
Tuesday, May 5th, 2009 -- by Bacchus
Just another night chez Violet Blue. Invite a few friends over, then before you know it, there’s a porn shoot going on in your apartment:
On friday I got a couple of emails from Jiz Lee and Courtney Trouble saying that their planned location for a porn shoot had fallen through at the last minute, and could they use my living room? As if I’d say no. But to sweeten the deal, they told me I’d not only be able to hang out and take photos but that it was okay to blog the experience – plus, I told them, I had a few friends who were going to be hanging out with me that night, and they said that it was cool for my friends to be there too. Bonus!
…
It was all girl-girl, and I think four girls fucked each other in my bed.
I now have a love-hate relationship with my own bed. It is a very lucky bed. Remember the New Years’ incident? That damn bed gets way more action than I do, and I never seem to be in the room when it happens. Even my laptop was in a scene. The one I’m writing this post on.
As one of my non-porn friends night said that evening, “Everyone wants to be a piece of Violet’s furniture.”
And to think that six years ago (Six? really? Tempus fugit!) we were having fun with the idea of a RealDoll orgy at Violet’s place. I still think it’s a shame that never happened. But I’m struck, as I read those old blog posts, by how much has changed in six short/long years.
Even if the RealDoll orgy had gone down as contemplated, it would have had a strong 20th century flavor about it: mechanical participants, corporate sponsorship, marketing angle, careful planning, strong focus on ten grand worth of lovingly-fetishized products. This “got a few emails from some friends and before I knew it an excellent porn shoot broke out in my bedroom” is, both socially and economically, much more 21st century. It’s Bruce Sterling’s White Fungus, “architecture of participation” stuff. Who needs a studio when you’ve got a cell phone and a sufficient network of cool friends? Or, turning it to better place the emphasis where it may belong, how do you make a porn movie when what you’ve got is, not a studio or a thriving business model that can front you the studio lease, but a cell phone and a network of cool friends? Growing up soon after Depression 1.0, my mom called this “making do with what you’ve got.” If she’d had a cell phone, she would have been dangerous.
Thursday, December 18th, 2008 -- by Bacchus
I am not making this up. Mexican Playboy did a photo shoot of Maria Florencia Onori as the Virgin Mary, and the result was a bunch of pissed-off Mexican Catholics.
I myself think Maria is beautiful, and don’t have a lot of time for Christians who despise female beauty to the point where they freak out when it’s associated, however indirectly, with their holy figures:
I got this from Violet Blue, who has many more details.
Wednesday, July 9th, 2003 -- by Bacchus
I know, because daily I read and mostly fail to comprehend Scripting News, that there’s some sort of techie war-for-hearts-and-minds going on over RSS and all those other perplexing abbreviations having to do with syndication. Someone’s ox is being gored, and Winer and Ev and Google and the BlogSpot people are in it up to their ears, and all I know for sure is that my pathetic RSS headline feed is probably funky when it’s not downright broken, and that I can’t put any content in my feed at all because my blogging software doesn’t know the difference between properly formed XML and the steaming putrid droppings of Thor’s middle chariot goat. (I’m talking about the mean one, Blitzen, who, with his brother Donner, later put on some fake antlers and got a job with Santa Claus. I am not making this up.) Oh yeah, and there’s something afoot that’s somehow related to all of this (well, not related to the reindeer impersonators so far as I know) called Echo, which is so horrible that Adam Curry has offered to pay ten thousand clams to some assortment of individuals or entities, if they will just display good taste by ignoring and failing to support this Echo business, whatever it is.
Confused yet? Good. Welcome to the club. We’re just getting to the good part.
So here I am, smurfing happily down the trail between the smurfberry bushes following a trail of Smurfette’s undergarmets, when I make this post here suggesting that some rich benefactor give Violet Blue the ten thousand clams she needs to have a RealDoll orgy and write home about it.
Little did I know that I’d wandered into the crossfire of the RSS wars.
Comes now Dan Lyke over at Flutterby, who for some reason I haven’t been reading lately even though he very kindly in his comments way back when this was a wee bitty baby sex blog, and offers up this brilliant idea: Why not get Adam to put his ten thousand clams toward Violet Blue’s noble social experiment?
I don’t have a dog in this RSS/Echo fight, and I’m clearly not smart enough to have an opinion as to how all that should come out. But I know what I know. And what I know is, I really want four guys with names on their shirts to show up at Violet Blue’s apartment at seven in the morning with two huge packing crates full of carefully packaged Real Doll. And a five gallon bucket of Liquid Silk, to go, complete with electric immersion heater. So I’m getting solidly behind Dan Lyke’s proposal.
Similar Sex Blogging:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
|
|
