Category: Popular culture

14 Jan

4 Comments

Alien Nipples And “Adults Only” Hair Sex

by

Avatar nipples
SPOILER ALERT: Warning! This post is about the film Avatar and may contain spoilers. Stop reading now if you haven’t seen it. Also, stop reading now if your find the idea of alien nipples or hair sex disturbing.

I finally saw James Cameron’s Avatar yesterday and I quite liked it. The visual imagery was stunning but I found the plot a little derivative and unoriginal. Where Titanic made me cry like a romantic fool, Avatar didn’t really inspire any serious emotional reaction. So I was a trifle disappointed but still mostly impressed.

Reviews aside, I’m rather intrigued about the “nudity” and sexuality depicted within the film. As you probably know, Avatar features a race of blue-skinned, forest-dwelling aliens called the Na’vi who tend to wear very little clothing apart from loincloths, necklaces and weapons. Their long tails tend to cover up their buttocks and we don’t ever see any glimpses of genitals.

The females have small breasts and presumably also nipples because the males have them. Problem is… we’re not allowed to see them. The women wear various neck decorations which cover the whole nipply area although there are a number of times when we are given glimpses of the full boob. At the very start I swore I saw a nipple outline but on other occasions there was a simple flat blue surface. Others have debated this whole vexed question and someone pointed at that since these aliens aren’t placental mammals, they shouldn’t have breasts at all.

Why do I care about whether the audience can see alien nipples?

I’m interested because it throws light on issues of censorship, “child friendly” entertainment and of Western society’s whole attitude towards breasts and sexuality.

In theory, it shouldn’t matter that we can see the nipples or genitalia of an alien. If the computer-generated image on screen doesn’t depict a human, why are we imposing human ideas of “obscenity” onto it? Surely the tails of the Na’vi are just as rude?

The same thinking applies to the excision of the love scene between hero Jake and the Na’vi woman Neytiri. We only see them kiss… and then we have a few vague shots of them cuddling, fading to black. The original script sees them “plugging in” to each other via the nerve-type thingies (“queues”) in their hair:

He puts his face close to hers. She rubs her cheek against his. He kisses her on the mouth. They explore each other. Then she pulls back, eyes sparkling.

NEYTIRI: Kissing is very good. But we have something better.

She pulls him down until they are kneeling, facing each other
on the faintly glowing moss.

Neytiri takes the end of her queue and raises it. Jake does
the same, with trembling anticipation. The tendrils at the
ends move with a life of their own, straining to be joined.

MACRO SHOT — The tendrils INTERTWINE with gentle
undulations.

JAKE rocks with the direct contact between his nervous system
and hers. The ultimate intimacy.

They come together into a kiss and sink down on the bed of
moss, and ripples of light spread out around them.

THE WILLOWS sway, without wind, and the night is alive with
pulsing energy as we DISSOLVE TO –

LATER. She is collapsed across his chest. Spent. He
strokes her face tenderly.

(from this page)

Apparently Cameron made the decision to cut out the scene to keep the film PG-13. It will feature in the DVD, along with more nipple shots.

I think the whole “ultimate intimacy” idea behind “queue mingling” sounds rather fabulous. Much more spectacular than the usual messing around with bodily fluids. And it certainly buys into the idea of sex as being a transcendent activity, more important than mere reproduction or physical pleasure.

But is it sex at all? There’s no real hint as to whether “queue mingling” actually qualifies as a reproductive act – especially given that the Na’vi tend to “plug in” to their horse-creatures and dragon-type animals and trees. Declaring the act to be a sexual one tends to turn the Na’vi into the very naughtiest kind of tree-huggers.

But why should children not see a scene that doesn’t actually involve sex – at least, sex of the human kind? Why should kids be protected from glimpses of alien nipples? (Indeed, I could go off on a rant about why we get so upset at the idea of kids seeing human sexuality… but that’s another post.) In theory, the Na’vi are the same result of evolutionary biology as the rest of us; their bodies do what they have evolved to do. I could detect no overtly restrictive sexual “morality” written into the imaginary society of Cameron’s indigenous people beyond the fact that queuing enforces a natural monogamy.

Of course, we all know that these imaginary aliens are simply a metaphor for human indigenous people. They share too many humanoid traits for us to consider them as “true” aliens – of the kind that, say, tend to lay eggs in your chest or go on intergalactic hunting missions.

So all the careful concealment of genitals and nipples and weird hair sex are to suit the strange attitudes of the audience, for whom nudity is still shameful and sex is still taboo. And ultimately, this self-censorship by the filmmaker was about getting the film out to as many people as possible, including children, who we deem to be too frail to endure the sight of blue nipples.

And do I even need to point out the ongoing insanity that says kids can’t be exposed to sexuality but violence – such as the graphic final battle scenes of Avatar – is fine?

We’ve obviously got a long way to go with the way sex is depicted in mainstream films if we can’t even explore the sexual biology of an imaginary alien species.

Photo is from the official Avatar site. I wasn’t able to find many pics to better showcase alien boobs, although I suspect the filmmakers want it that way.

07 Dec

4 Comments

Why You Shouldn’t Assume That All Porn Should Be Free

by

Downloading screenshotI’ve long been musing about the whole issue of copyright, downloading and paying for entertainment/artistic content. It’s now the end of the Noughties and, as we speak, film studios, media companies and distributors are becoming increasingly hysterical about the effects of the internet, in particular the piracy that occurs through torrents and illegal downloads. The British government is mulling over a bill that would see people losing access to the internet if they are caught downloading copyrighted material, as are other Western governments.

Meanwhile plenty of people are advocating changes to copyright law that acknowledges the current situation: that millions of people download music, movies and TV shows every day without paying for them and that you can’t criminalise the whole world.

If everyone is downloading, does the law even apply anymore?

When it comes to porn, the internet is awash with free adult material. If you wish you can visit a torrent site and download any feature-length porn film you can name, helpfully uploaded by some unnamed masturbator. Or you can visit one of the plethora of free tube sites that feature porn video clips, many of them illegally ripped from membership sites. Beyond that there are millions of small galleries and free sites offering an abundance of porn, all for free.

Part of the reason for all this free porn is the promotional model that first emerged in the late 90s: give people some free photos and advertise at the same time. If the surfer is interested in the samples they will hopefully buy a membership to see more explicit pics.

Unfortunately the “sample” model turned into the “here’s the whole shebang” model and suddenly people didn’t need to pay money to see the hardcore stuff because it was absolutely everywhere and freely available.

The end result of all this free porn on the internet is the decline of the mainstream porn industry. As we speak some of the major adult companies are struggling to stay afloat. Porn stars are getting less work and they’re being paid less because the money is no longer there.

Too bad, I hear you say. It’s time the rich media companies stopped ripping us all off.

This is the usual thing I hear in defence of downloading, especially with regards to Hollywood movies and major record companies. The big wigs have had control of the business for too long, they’ve starved out competitors and encouraged crap product at the expense of good artists. The model is stale and cynical and is not giving us what we want. So who cares if they lose money, they’ve got heaps of it anyway. And it’s time things changed.

And I kind of agree, in a way. The distributors and the executives and the parasites need to be scraped away from the creation of good art. It’s time we cut out the middle man and found a better way for artists to get their product out there.

But here’s my problem. Amid all this “Robin Hood” downloading I’m also seeing plenty of theft that is hurting smaller producers. I’m talking about the filmmakers, actors, writers and artists who don’t have a big company behind them. They’re creating self-produced porn with their own money, putting a lot of time, effort and love into making something they think is worthwhile. It can take years for a single film to be made involving vast amounts of work, often without pay, to see a vision realised. And then there’s the endless wrangling with distributors and gatekeepers, trying to get the movie out to the audience.

And what happens then? Some asshole rips it and puts it on a torrent.

Too bad, goes the argument. They should just be happy that people are watching their film in the first place. Art shouldn’t come with a price tag, right?

This seems a delightfully lofty ideal and it’s one that we all might aspire to. Unfortunately, here in the real world, things don’t work that way. We live in a capitalist society where people need to work to make money to live. If you choose to pursue filmmaking rather than, say, an office job, you choose to live on the breadline. Sure, you could try and do both but it’s a great deal harder to come up with good art.

So firstly, if we accept that people deserve money for effort then demanding that they offer that effort for free is not fair.

Secondly, if someone puts time and money into a film and it doesn’t pay the bills (or the loan) because people refuse to buy then they are highly unlikely to make a second film. And if their first film is really good then there’s no chance to further enjoy that person’s unique perspective.

Making good porn requires money. Sure, anyone can grab their camcorder and film themselves fucking in a dimly lit room. That’s amateur porn and yes, it has plenty of fans. But if you want porn that has decent lighting, sound, sets, camerawork, costumes and actors, you need to start forking out the cash to make that happen. Even simple low-budget stuff can’t be done properly unless you have money. I know this, I’ve done it.

And if you want to go a step further and create porn that breaks the mould, that tries new ideas, that explores weird fantasies or breaks taboos AND is ethically made, you definitely need money. That’s just how it works. The simple ethical idea of treating performers with respect means you have to pay them properly. And that takes money.

Someone asked where they could find feminist porn for free. The answer is, you won’t find a lot of the new wave of independent feminist porn without paying for it. And nor should you. The people who are forging a new path in the porn industry, creating female-friendly erotica with feminist/humanist ethics and high aesthetic value are all doing it without the support of any major players. We’re all small-time in the broad scheme of things.

So many of the filmmakers I met in Berlin are struggling, trying to get their work out there while being ignored by the mainstream porn industry that refuses to believe that women even like porn. They’re self-publishing and distributing, working their butts off trying to get their product out into the marketplace. They may be offering samples of their work, but nobody can afford to just give the whole thing away.

I’m speaking here as a porn producer and artist but I should point out that I’m also a consumer. A few years ago I did my share of downloading on a file sharing site – and I will still do it occasionally when it’s apparent I can’t find and pay for what I want through standard channels (and this I understand is one of the reason many people do download – so many media companies still haven’t “got it” with regards to the internet). But I did make an ethical choice to stop downloading indiscriminately because I felt that what I was doing was ultimately not fair to the artists.

And this is what I want to advocate in this long and rather painful post. We as surfers need to put the brakes on and start to adopt some ethics when it comes to downloading. If we want to see copyright laws loosened then we damn well need to take some responsibility on our end.

Here are my suggestions for the ethical consumption of online media:

    If a movie or song is by an independent artist, make an effort to find their website and buy it directly off them. You will undoubtedly get it cheaper, possibly personalised and you know they’re getting compensation for their hard work that made you happy.
    If you’ve already downloaded something and you really like it, make an effort to buy the official version. Or if it’s not in buyable form, make a donation.
    If you like something, recommend it to your friends.
    If a movie/song/website is making an effort to cater to you and is offering high quality stuff that you can’t normally get elsewhere, pay for it. You are paying for ethics and quality, in much the same way you pay more for free range eggs.
    Don’t assume that everything should be free or begrudge having to pay. It’s not fair to the artist and will ultimately result in less content being created.

Things are still a jumbled mess when it comes to copyright and the world of entertainment feels like it’s on the cusp of a huge change. Everything is going to be delivered digitally in the future and the big media companies can see themselves being squeezed out. I’m not going to mourn them. It’s going to be great when every individual artist is able to make a living by communicating directly with their audience.

BUT

The online audience has to come to the party. If we want the brave new world that is the internet then it can’t all be free.

* The above pic is a screenshot from Grahame Linehan‘s hilarious spoof of that annoying anti-piracy ad in the IT Crowd. Mr Linehan is a vocal advocate for loosening copyright laws and not prosecuting people for file sharing. He’s also hilarious.

01 Dec

2 Comments

Violet Blue On Oprah

by

Someone has helpfully posted the segment on the Oprah show featuring Violet Blue so I’ve finally been able to watch what was said.

Violet has posted her feelings about the show on her blog and they’re overwhelmingly positive. I like this bit:

Look closely at this show and you’ll notice that Oprah has reframed the entire conversation: we women are not ‘tolerated’ or marginalized for exploring our inhibitions, voicing our desires, or owning our sexual agency — we are embraced. The 1 in 3 consumers of adult material online — women — were finally acknowledged, and with respect for a change…

Myths and stereotypes: smashed! We live in a world where women are more sexually powerful and articulate than any other time in history because of the internet and emergent communicative technologies. Oprah’s hip to it. You’re soaking in it. And that’s really, outrageously exciting for all of us.

She’s right, of course. It’s wonderful that women’s erotica got such a good airing on a mainstream TV show without the usual negativity.

I do, however, have a gripe. I feel that the show only seemed to skim the surface of the topic and it did so in a way that seemed to focus much more on the mainstream porn industry rather than the burgeoning indie/women’s porn movement that I feel is doing a better job at catering to women. I think having the interview with Jenna Jameson as the main focus meant things were skewed that way.

That moment when Oprah first asked about Violet’s recommended movies had me holding my breath, waiting to hear Tony Comstock’s name, or Nica Noelle’s, or Shine Louise Houston’s or even Candida Royalle’s. Alas, it turned into a plug for Jenna’s relatively mainstream film The Masseuse, fab though that may be.

And it’s wonderful for Playgirl and director Skye Blue to get a mention but for me that company is a prime example of mainstream porn aiming at a female market but not necessarily getting it right. The Playgirl movies I’ve seen look great and can inspire a mood but they still feature the same old porn stars having the same old porny sex. They’re nice enough but they could be so much more.

Of course, maybe I’m just jealous. Actually, I AM jealous, dammit. Once again, online porn receives much less media attention than “real” porn offered via movies (although now that DVD sales have tanked, this may change).

The main thing is, it’s a start and it was good that Oprah even dared to tackle the topic (especially given some of the negative and vitriolic reactions from viewers in the forum).

Now that Oprah has announced a new cable lifestyle channel we can look forward to a sexuality-themed TV series, one that has more time to devote to women’s erotica.

I can dream, can’t I?

23 Nov

2 Comments

The Post Oprah Washup

by

Oprah and Jenna JamesonSo it’s been almost a week since Oprah did her porn show. I haven’t had a chance to watch it so I can’t comment but it seems the response is not as positive as we’d like it to have been.

This seems due to the fact that the show relied heavily on an interview with Jenna Jameson. Reading comments in the Oprah forums after the show had aired, I was depressed to see so much negativity towards the topic and also toward Jenna herself. Perhaps not surprising – blonde, silicone-boobed Jenna is not exactly the sort of celebrity who appeals to your average soccor mom/Oprah viewer. She’s an example of the mainstream porn industry rather than the new alternative porn that is seeking to cater to women.

By all accounts Violet did a great job but it was Jenna who got the attention – along with Vivid founder Steve Hirsch. The show also featured the owner of an adult store. What is interesting is the number of people who weren’t interviewed.

Which brings us to Candida Royalle. She’s made a comment on Facebook saying she’s “miffed” at the Oprah show for the way it was conducted:

Anyone catch Jenna Jameson on the Oprah show? Jenna trying to take credit for ‘feminist porn’ was a joke. Only thing worse was watching Vivid founder Steve Hirsch try to take credit for the ‘couples market’. Oh really? Was he even in business when I created my Femme line for women and couples in 1984?…

So here’s the deal: I was called by the producers in June and worked with them for 5 months on that show…only to be canned at the last minute along with a bevy of other far more qualified and significant women who made a difference for women in porn…

In the end they went for the most famous, wealthiest and recognizable person who they hoped would bring in the ratings…it is after all sweeps month.

(Quote is from LukeisBack)

I do think it’s a pity that Candida and other female-friendly porn producers (and stars) couldn’t have been on the show. Hell, I’d have paid my own way over there to be on it and give my 9 years’ worth of 2 cents. But I guess it’s a mainstream show and, like Candida said, they wanted something to give them ratings and headlines.

There have been a few articles about the show:

E!Online offered this snarky short piece: Jameson to Oprah: I’m One Classy Lassie

The Examiner had several opinion pieces on the episode. Suzanne White offered this analysis of the show, concluding that it was focused on Jenna rather than on women consuming porn.

Interestingly, Google News lists Oprah/Jenna stories from such worthy tomes as The Plastic Surgery Channel and Celebrity Baby Scoop. I decided not to link to those.

Here’s the page on Oprah.com describing the show along with several other links (including, unfortunately, an article that states that “men are visual, women are textual”).

So… all in all, it hasn’t exactly been the big win I was hoping for.

Incidentally, if I had the luxury of compiling a show about women, porn and the new wave of feminist porn, I’d want to invite a massive guest list. My stars would include:

Candida Royalle, Annie Sprinkle, Nina Hartley, Veronica Hart, Shine Louise Houston, Anna Brownfield, Jennifer Lyon Bell, Tony Comstock, Petra Joy, Erika Lust, Marianna Beck, Maria Beatty, Nina Lennox, Anna Span, Nica Noelle, Jamye Waxman, Audacia Ray, Tina Tyler, Estelle Joseph, Tristan Taormino, Madison Young, Mia Engberg…

And me of course.

Now that I’ve compiled that list, it’s pretty damned impressive, actually, and nowhere near comprehensive.

Here’s hoping the Oprah show decides they haven’t given the topic enough attention and has another go.

06 Oct

0 Comments

A History Of English Marriage

by

The wedding suit cartoonThe white dress, the reception, the invitations… the way we get married feels very traditional, as if it’s been done that way forever. Trouble is, our idea of marriage has only been around since Victorian times.

The Times has a fantastic article about the history of marriage in England and how its changed over the centuries.

It is surprising perhaps that the white wedding is still in vogue. There is nothing truly traditional about it. It was invented by the Victorians to show that the lady was rich enough to have a dress that was used only once. Victorian fathers “gave” their daughters away wearing virginal white and a veil as a substitute for her long hair worn use, originally the symbol of virginity.

Given the choice, those unencumbered by property preferred to avoid the expense and rigmarole of an official church wedding and spend their money on drinking to celebrate the new partnership. Dodging the newly imposed tax and resentment at the state’s interference in their private business provided further incentives to live in “common law unions” that had no basis in law and did not carry property rights. As long as a couple considered themselves “married in the sight of God” and was “reputed lawful man and wife amongst their neighbours” the forms of ceremony mattered little to them.

Clandestine marriage led to all sorts of abuses, from the kidnapping, drugging, forced marriage and rape of heiresses by fortune hunters to under-age, same-sex, incestuous or bigamous unions. Bigamy was common in a society where divorce was denied. Given the dubious nature of the paperwork and lack of witnesses, it was all too easy to walk away from a clandestine marriage and marry again.

I think all those who feel that gay marriage somehow undermines society should read this and consider what a shaky base our modern concept of marriage is built upon.

28 Sep

5 Comments

30 Seconds Of The Female Gaze

by

This is an ad for Diet Coke from the 90s. Now, I abhor Diet Coke but this ad almost makes me forgive it for all its sins. That’s because this ad is a showcase for the female gaze – the idea of shooting from a woman’s point of view. Yes, it’s only advertising, but think about how often ads assume the viewer is male and trot out the standard bikini girls.

And the guy is kind of hot.

I’ve created a new site called The Female Gaze where I’m hoping to look at ads, photos and films that give priority to a female perspective. It’s still in its early stages but it will grow, I’m sure.

15 Sep

0 Comments

Patrick Swayze: Thanks For The Shirtlessness.

by

Patrick Swayze and Jennifer Grey in Dirty Dancing - with the shirt off!
Patrick Swayze and Demi Moore in Ghost - with the shirt off!
Patrick Swayze without a shirt
Patrick Swayze and his shirtlessness

Today brings the sad news that Patrick Swayze has finally succumbed to pancreatic cancer.

I thought I’d add a blog post on behalf of all the thirty-something women who are feeling a little bit sad right now. In our teens, Patrick embodied an ideal of manhood that was very appealing. His role as Johnny Castle in Dirty Dancing was certainly romantic… but it was something else too. He represented an awakening of sexual desire, both in Jennifer Grey’s Baby character and within ourselves.

There’s a reason Swazye was voted the best near-naked man on screen. He spends almost half of Dirty Dancing sans shirt. And the camera spends a lot of time lingering over his muscles and chiselled good looks. That film treats Patrick with a distinctly female gaze and I know that many, many women responded positively to that.

Just look at the “Cry To Me” scene from Dirty Dancing. Baby is the one in control here and she’s the one admiring him. That’s pretty rare in a mainstream film. And it’s also very sexy.

Cry to Me Clip

Ah Patrick. Yes, you did a great many other good things, but it’s this that I will remember you for. Thanks for the shirtlessness.

Filed Under: Hot pics, Popular culture

15 Sep

2 Comments

A Naked Man On The Cover… Of A Fashion Mag

by

Naked man on the cover of Wallpaper

Fashion and design magazine Wallpaper* has gone out on a limb by offering a cover featuring a “peelable” naked man. The cover starts out all very clothed, but you can then peel back a sticker and the rather handsome guy on the cover is totally naked.

It’s a lovely idea and one I’d like to see more of. I’m sure the girls at Erotica Cover Watch will be very pleased. I’ll also be interested to see how well the whole thing sells.

Interestingly, the Guardian’s coverage of the cover focuses on the cost and logistics of the whole thing. There’s no commentary whatsoever about the fact that the man is naked, no typical hysteria about “porn” or the corruption of children or (insert moral panic here).

Is it because it’s a fashion magazine? Are people making the assumption that the naked man is aimed at gay consumers – and only gay men read fashion mags? Or is it lacking in headlines because the bogans don’t normally go near that kind of magazine and thus haven’t noticed it or complained?

* No, really, dahlings. “Wallpaper*” with an asterisk is how you write it. And say it, obviously. I’m always saying things with a silent asterisk. Like now*.

11 Sep

2 Comments

Hot Men In Makeup: Eddie Izzard

by

I’ve been following the lovely Eddie Izzard on Twitter for a while now. He’s currently running six weeks of consecutive marathons across Britain for charity, which is reason enough to admire him, but he’s also an extremely funny cross dresser. As you can see from the above video. Eddie enjoys getting out the high heels and putting on makeup and is happy to flaunt the fact in his shows. He enjoys playing with the idea of gender too. I just have to be a bit lazy here and use Wikipedia because it seems quite apt:

He regularly cross-dresses both on and off stage and makes it clear that cross-dressing is, for him, neither a part of his performance nor a sexual thing — he simply enjoys wearing make-up and clothing that is traditionally perceived in the West as female-only. He remarks in one of his shows, “Women wear what they want and so do I.”… He dismisses claims that he is a male homosexual, saying he is either a straight transvestite or a “male lesbian.”

Having been converted to the joys of hot guys in makeup long ago via Tim Curry in the Rocky Horror Picture Show, I can’t help but find Eddie extremely sexy. Here’s some more pics of him:

Eddie Izzard in drag
Eddie Izzard

You can contribute to Eddie’s charity campaign by donating here:

03 Sep

0 Comments

Why Dopamine Makes Me Obsessed With Twitter

by

Running on the internet treadmill, addicted to dopamineIn the last year I’ve become a heavy user of Twitter, as you can see from the sidebar with my regular Tweets. While it’s been great fun it’s also been a serious drain on my time and resources. I can lose half a day following links and Twittering and reading what other people have said. I put off doing real work because I’m frittering away my time, amusing myself, finding new things that I plan to blog about and never do.

Now there’s some official research to explain why I’m doing this. An article in Slate discusses research into the way dopamine causes us to continually seek things.

Ever find yourself sitting down at the computer just for a second to find out what other movie you saw that actress in, only to look up and realize the search has led to an hour of Googling? Thank dopamine. Our internal sense of time is believed to be controlled by the dopamine system. People with hyperactivity disorder have a shortage of dopamine in their brains, which a recent study suggests may be at the root of the problem. For them even small stretches of time seem to drag. An article by Nicholas Carr in the Atlantic last year, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” speculates that our constant Internet scrolling is remodeling our brains to make it nearly impossible for us to give sustained attention to a long piece of writing. Like the lab rats, we keep hitting “enter” to get our next fix.

Yep, that’s me. It’s actually been troubling me for some time that my attention span has become so short. I typically have about 16 tabs open in Firefox plus numerous programs on my desktop. I can be “officially” doing three or four things at once but in reality I’m not getting anything done. Instead I’m flitting around from one thing to the next.

I feel like this behaviour began way back when on I was on dialup; research used to take so long to come up that I’d need to do a few things at once to be efficient. It can happen now when I’m rendering movies. But that’s not a good enough excuse anymore. Now I really have to work hard to pay attention to do one thing for a long period of time. I keep wanting to check what’s new on Facebook, on Twitter, to quickly look up a fact on Google, to have a look at traffic stats, to watch a quick video on Youtube…

There’s a state of consciousness called “flow” when we become so engrossed in something that we forget all sense of time or where we are. When you are working in a state of flow, life is beautiful. You can get that story written, that movie edited, that design done, that website finished. But my brain doesn’t seem as willing to get into that state anymore. It’s always seeking, seeking, seeking. The dopamine is messing with me.

Religious nuts and Luddite panic merchants love to talk about the idea of “porn addiction” or “internet addiction” without having any research to back it up. Well, finally here’s something that scientifically discusses the idea of “addiction” in a rational manner. And, by the looks of it the subject matter isn’t the problem. It’s the simple human need to find new information and enjoy different experiences. Thus, there is as much danger from “recipe addiction” as there is from “porn addiction.” If you let the dopamine spur you on, things can get out of balance.

My grandmother had a saying: “Everything in moderation.” It’s something I try to live my life by. And now I need to apply it to Twitter and Facebook and all those other distractions.

Pic is from the Slate article, sums things up rather nicely.

13 Aug

2 Comments

A Limp Response To Women’s Erotica

by

FilamentErotica authors (and book cover crusaders) Kristina Lloyd and Mathilde Madden have written a great piece in the Guardian discussing the difficulties Filament has had in printing erect dicks.

I liked this bit:

When set against the plethora of men’s lifestyle and top-shelf magazines featuring scantily clad and open-legged women, the struggles faced by Filament highlight a deeply entrenched sexism: men can look at women but women cannot look at men.

Attempts to even out this disparity often lead to cries that two wrongs don’t make a right; that countering the prevalence of eroticised women by adding men to the mix legitimises sexist objectification. But there’s nothing inherently sexist about depicting nudity. It’s sexist when only women are deemed to signify the erotic; it’s sexist when eroticised images of women are so normalised and widespread that women stand to be viewed first and foremost as sex objects – their value inextricably linked to their sexual desirability. The sexism is in the inequality.

As much as I support Filament in their quest to get dicks onto newsagent shelves, part of me is pondering the fuss. How is it that the print world is so fucking outdated? I’ve been publishing photos of naked men with erect cocks since the year 2000. No government interference, no printing issues, no distribution hassles, no sexist male penpushers getting all nervous about the prospect of peen. Just me and my server and my FTP program.

And yet that has never been deemed newsworthy. I’ve been participating in a publishing revolution for almost a decade and yet here we are still hung up on what’s considered suitable to print on paper. How extraordinarily strange.

And how is it, in two thousand and fucking nine, that people can be spooked by photos of erections? What? How? Why? WHY?

31 Jul

0 Comments

HBO Series About Women’s Porn Mag

by

Ocean photo shoot
Reuters reports that HBO are creating a half-hour television series about an old-school feminist who starts a porn magazine for women. The concept will examine all the feminism versus “raunch culture” ideas and will star Diane Keaton in the lead role (and as executive producer).

“We’ve came a long way since the Kinsey report; women are more sexual now,” said Noxon, referring to Alfred Kinsey’s controversial 1953 report “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female.”

Added Parouse: “There seems to be a new evolution of what women are sexually. Women are acting more like men sexually.”

Sounds like a bit of fun. Chances are we won’t get to see it in Australia. Ah well, there’s always downloading.

Meanwhile, Violet Blue’s Oprah article continues to cause ripples. The Examiner has an opinion piece here and here.

24 Jun

0 Comments

The Gorgeous Tim Minchin

by

I’ve had this song in my head for days so I thought I’d share it.

Tim Minchin is an Australian comedian with a very dark sense of humour. He’s also strangely attractive. I think it just goes to show how eyeliner on a man can be extremely sexy.

Also just have to include the following photo, officially called “Erotic Jesus Tim” because it’s gorgeous.
Erotic Jesus Tim Minchin

See more pics at the official Tim Minchin site.

09 Jun

1 Comment

Penis Art Exhibition Censored

by

Christo's Penis by Jacques CharlierThe SMH reports the Venice Biennale have rejected a proposal for an art exhibition featuring symbolic drawings of famous genitals.

Jacques Charlier, a Belgian artist, had wanted to show the visual puns, each with a written clue, inviting viewers to guess who owned what. For example, Christo’s resembled a parcel, with the clue “wraps in very special things”.

The authorities rejected the proposal for fear of offending Venetians and the artists represented.

The artist has used the banning as an opportunity to promote his work, and good on him. Here’s his site which gives details of the 100 Sexes d’Artistes exhibition and the correspondence with the directors of the Biennale. Best of all, you can flick through the entire 100 drawings online! A lot of them are very obscure and unfortunately you don’t get the written hints unless you do the quiz but it’s very amusing nonetheless.

I love the internet. Some asshole in Vienna says people aren’t allowed to see something and naturally we all immediately seek it out. And get access to it without any fucking gatekeepers telling us what’s good for us. And now I get the chance to experience a bit of art I would never have otherwise discovered.

Some of them are good, some are too obscure, and some aren’t that great. I’m glad I got to make up my own mind.