Posts
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Good TV Is On The Way
As a fairly avid watcher, I was kind of worried that TV was going to let me down in the future- what with "The Shield" being on its [amazingly suspenseful and deliciously dramatic] last season as I type, the "Flight Of The Conchords" second and probably last season not due out until at least next year and probably later, and with the new, hot, oft-touted shows being the like of "Kath and Kim" (aspiring, dumb socialites? really? that's original?). Plus living and watching TV with my new roommate has exposed me to just how unappealing most TV out there nowadays is- I'm slogging through "Greek" and "Gilmore Girls" and trying to be open-minded and not criticize the hell out of this crud.
But just when I start giving up hope, good news comes! Three new shows in the works have me superbly excited, even though it'll probably be a while before I get to see them:
1) "The Daily Show" has pretty much become a launching pad for greatness, with Stephen Colbert and Steve Carrell as the best examples. Now Samantha Bee and her co-star and hubby Jason Jones are going to be in a new sitcom! It looks like it's going to be some sort of spoof on reality cooking shows (probably a la "Hell's Kitchen" or something), which doesn't sound all that amazing, but I have high hopes that this comedy team can totally go the distance.
2) And, after Amy Sedaris (remember when I was naive enough to think "Bisexual Star Fucker" would be a weekly endeavor?) has teased me with little guest appearances in shows and bit parts in off-the-beaten-path movies, here she comes with a new show in the works! With Paul Dinello as part of her writing team (yes!) and David Letterman's company Worldwide Pants footing the bill, this supposedly six-year old idea with lots of room for improv has me almost drooling. Oh please, whatever network picks this up, do not be stupid like you were when you dropped "Strangers With Candy"!
3) The creator of that provocative lil' show "Swingtown" is teaming up with Sean Hayes (i.e. Jack from "Will and Grace") is going to make a new show on Showtime (another channel I don't have . . . grrr), but what's totally cool about it is that it'll tackle bisexuality! "Bi-Coastal" (a play on words, given the main character's sexuality and the fact that his lovers are on separate sides of the country, between which he commutes) might end up being another lame portrayal of bisexuals, but I have high hopes. At the very least, a recurring series with a main character gives a lot more opportunity for a deep, complex, and nuanced exploration that the little bits we get here and there otherwise.
So yeah, I'm excited. I'll still have my go-to shows for a while ("The Shield", "Psych" and "Monk" returning in January, a probably ridiculous yet somehow still addictive season of "Nip/Tuck" in store). Unless some erstwhile producer wants to pick up Willam Belli's "Tranny McGuyver", the new, hilarious short film of which has been making its way around the festival circuits and can be seen here for free (you just have to register!).
But just when I start giving up hope, good news comes! Three new shows in the works have me superbly excited, even though it'll probably be a while before I get to see them:
1) "The Daily Show" has pretty much become a launching pad for greatness, with Stephen Colbert and Steve Carrell as the best examples. Now Samantha Bee and her co-star and hubby Jason Jones are going to be in a new sitcom! It looks like it's going to be some sort of spoof on reality cooking shows (probably a la "Hell's Kitchen" or something), which doesn't sound all that amazing, but I have high hopes that this comedy team can totally go the distance.
2) And, after Amy Sedaris (remember when I was naive enough to think "Bisexual Star Fucker" would be a weekly endeavor?) has teased me with little guest appearances in shows and bit parts in off-the-beaten-path movies, here she comes with a new show in the works! With Paul Dinello as part of her writing team (yes!) and David Letterman's company Worldwide Pants footing the bill, this supposedly six-year old idea with lots of room for improv has me almost drooling. Oh please, whatever network picks this up, do not be stupid like you were when you dropped "Strangers With Candy"!
3) The creator of that provocative lil' show "Swingtown" is teaming up with Sean Hayes (i.e. Jack from "Will and Grace") is going to make a new show on Showtime (another channel I don't have . . . grrr), but what's totally cool about it is that it'll tackle bisexuality! "Bi-Coastal" (a play on words, given the main character's sexuality and the fact that his lovers are on separate sides of the country, between which he commutes) might end up being another lame portrayal of bisexuals, but I have high hopes. At the very least, a recurring series with a main character gives a lot more opportunity for a deep, complex, and nuanced exploration that the little bits we get here and there otherwise.So yeah, I'm excited. I'll still have my go-to shows for a while ("The Shield", "Psych" and "Monk" returning in January, a probably ridiculous yet somehow still addictive season of "Nip/Tuck" in store). Unless some erstwhile producer wants to pick up Willam Belli's "Tranny McGuyver", the new, hilarious short film of which has been making its way around the festival circuits and can be seen here for free (you just have to register!).
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
My Kind Of Sex Toy Testing . . . Already Exists!
This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Sex Map Can Lead You To Exotic Locales
I usually hate just regurgitating other, cooler blog's postings without adding my own spin on it in some way or another, but this is just too cool to not. Yup, it's a sex map listing a world of fetishes and types of sex. It. Rocks. So. Much. And it even made this jaded girl Google a few terms (jelly donut? who the hell comes up with these things?). I've got a blurry pic, but to examine every mountain range, go here.
From Eros Blog, who got if from Violet Blue, who got it from Viviane's Sex Carnival, who got it from the creator Franklin Veaux, who updated it from Kathrine Gate's original. (See, this is why I prefer originalish posts!).
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Nazi Fetish, or Politically Incorrect Fantasies
I've never quite understood how someone's fantasies could be deemed offensive. Fantasies and unacted-upon fetishes seem to be the last place where you can be yourself, where you don't have to worry about offending anybody, about conforming to societal mores, or being, Lord help us, politically correct. But as Behind Kink puts up a new, lengthy video explaining all the intricacies of their proposed rape fantasy site Midnight Takedown (read: a pre-emptive defense against an expected onslaught of criticism and controversy), I started thinking about my own politically incorrect fantasies.
Quite recently, I've shocked myself by a completely out-of-the-blue fetish for . . . Nazi fetishwear and roleplay. I suppose if I wanted to hide it, shade it a little, I'd say it was a uniform fetish, but it's not. It isn't just uniforms. It's one uniform in particular- a powerful aesthetic that, whether updated in latex and BDSM paraphenalia or as classic as the historical version it was modeled upon, evokes power, precision, fear, rules, and a healthy dose of taboo.I'm not quite sure where this fetish came from, or if it will slink back away to the recesses of my mind, but it's nonetheless fascinating at the moment- causing all my BDSM fantasies to be tinged with a
barking German accent, a derisive sneer, and a crisp, trim jacket and cap. It goes without saying, I hope, that I of course do not fetishize Nazi's themselves- or fascism, Hitler, the Holocaust, or anything remotely related to such. I'd rather the costumes not have swastikas, and I don't really want to see one-armed salutes; I'm not getting off on the Nazism. I'm getting off on taking it in, repackaging it in my mind, and finding sexual gratification in the meaning I have imbued it with. Or, as one person commented on a forum, "Atrocities aside, the Nazis had the best military uniforms of anyone in the modern world." Mix the fashion with the mere connotation of 'Nazi'- strict, powerful, foreign, cruel, and revolutionary- and all of the sudden, it becomes very, very sexy and provocative. No wonder punk fashion co-opted the look to make kinda-political-but-mostly-just-shocking statements.
And then, we can't forget, I think, that Nazi's have been sexualized in a lot of ways. I wonder how much "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" may have influenced my youthful self. The beautiful, femme fatale Elsa turned out to be a Nazi villainess. And yet even after her evilness is revealed, she is nonetheless still portrayed sexually- perhaps even moreso!- biting and sucking at a bound Indiana Jones' lip like an artful dominatrix. As a youngster who adored Indy, I must have sucked up that imagery like a sponge. And such imagery has come before and after that- from the highly controversial Italian film "The Night Porter" (above), to LeeLee Sobieski dancing around in joyful roleplay in her SS dress in "Walk All Over Me" (below). And that's not even counting all the Nazi exploitation cinema.
I'm not the only one who finds it hard to be immune to such symbolism. Max Mosley denied his Nazi sex scandal with Mistress Abi (pictured here in Nazi-ish regalia), but general consensus is a resounding "Yup, he did it.". And then there are the open fetishists who indulge in these thoughts: Facist Femmes, Uniformfetish, among others (leaving out those which make me uncomfortable with their explicit focus not only on fantasy, but on the actual Nazi movement, both historical and neo-Nazi modern).I must admit some trepidation in even pushing "Publish Post" for this blog. Undoubtedly there is someone out there who will insist I am evil and depraved for this little fetish. But I hope that this doesn't turn into a Nazi debate. I hope instead that it goes show that whatever your politically incorrect fantasies- age play, rape, incest, racial subjugation, you name it- they are just that: fantasies.
I think I'll let this odd, meandering blog close with one of my favorite quotes:
My own belief is that there is hardly anyone whose sexual life, if it were broadcast, would not fill the world at large with surprise and horror. ~W. Somerset Maugham
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
My Kind Of Sex Toy Testing
In a perfect world, you'd be able to take your sex toys for a test drive, much like you do your car. You could try it on much like your clothes. I mean, if it's important to get a bra that fits you right, how much more important is it to get something that fits your pussy/ass/dick? How many reviews have I read from people who have spent good money on toys that may be well-made but which still just don't do it? Why can't I go for quick run with that Rabbit vibrator before deciding to buy?
Of course, it's understandable, because used toys are, well, yucky. Even if you try to clean 'em up, someone's had them in direct contact with their genitals. And that's sort of nasty, even if we're assuming they're STD and infection-free. So even though I wish this could happen, it just ain't the case.
And while lots of sites do their best to provide good toy reviews, you're still left wondering. Sure, those buttons look nice, but will they be easy to hit in the heat of the moment? Yeah, that review says it's quiet, but how quiet is quiet? What are we judging it by? And for God's sake, how the hell am I supposed to use the Cone? You can always take their word for it, I suppose. Or you could see it in action.
That's just what Xtube's SexToyTester is trying to do. Though the guy only has one video up so far, and he is, well, as guy (meaning that, except for nipple, butt, or BDSM toys, he's not really much use for us gals), the premise is stellar: an ordinary person uses a sex toy for you on video. You get to see it the way you can't in a picture- up-close, at all sorts of angles, rotated for you and its size made very obvious compared to its surroundings and your body. You can hear any noises it makes, whether it's a vibrator's motor or the squishy sounds that you might not be expecting with a Fleshlight. If it vibrates or wiggles, your tester can plop it on the table or floor and let it go so you can see just how much movement or vibration it really has. Your tester can describe the feel and texture and can touch and point our various parts of the toy. No more confusing instructions in trying to get your batteries in and the thing on or off- watch as someone else does it. Watch as the person goes through their sexy time and any difficulties they might encounter (or not). The whole way through, they can point out good aspects and bad aspects (unless, of course, they're so enraptured by the toy that they forget or cannot speak . . . in which case, that's really a good aspect in itself!). In the end, they sum up the pros and cons of the toy, and you have a much better feel for whether or not the thing is going to work for you or not.
Heck, I'd be willing to shell out a modest price in order to get to watch these videos before I decide to buy a toy. Not to mention that everybody likes watching sexy people masturbate (or, for toys that can be used with couples, have partnered sex). Making it educational, useful, and helpful at the same time? Yes, please!
Go both SexToyTester. Tell him to make more videos. Make your own similar videos. Some entrepreneur out there- start up this website idea of mine. Because seriously, you deserve to know what you're buying.
Of course, it's understandable, because used toys are, well, yucky. Even if you try to clean 'em up, someone's had them in direct contact with their genitals. And that's sort of nasty, even if we're assuming they're STD and infection-free. So even though I wish this could happen, it just ain't the case.
And while lots of sites do their best to provide good toy reviews, you're still left wondering. Sure, those buttons look nice, but will they be easy to hit in the heat of the moment? Yeah, that review says it's quiet, but how quiet is quiet? What are we judging it by? And for God's sake, how the hell am I supposed to use the Cone? You can always take their word for it, I suppose. Or you could see it in action.
That's just what Xtube's SexToyTester is trying to do. Though the guy only has one video up so far, and he is, well, as guy (meaning that, except for nipple, butt, or BDSM toys, he's not really much use for us gals), the premise is stellar: an ordinary person uses a sex toy for you on video. You get to see it the way you can't in a picture- up-close, at all sorts of angles, rotated for you and its size made very obvious compared to its surroundings and your body. You can hear any noises it makes, whether it's a vibrator's motor or the squishy sounds that you might not be expecting with a Fleshlight. If it vibrates or wiggles, your tester can plop it on the table or floor and let it go so you can see just how much movement or vibration it really has. Your tester can describe the feel and texture and can touch and point our various parts of the toy. No more confusing instructions in trying to get your batteries in and the thing on or off- watch as someone else does it. Watch as the person goes through their sexy time and any difficulties they might encounter (or not). The whole way through, they can point out good aspects and bad aspects (unless, of course, they're so enraptured by the toy that they forget or cannot speak . . . in which case, that's really a good aspect in itself!). In the end, they sum up the pros and cons of the toy, and you have a much better feel for whether or not the thing is going to work for you or not.
Heck, I'd be willing to shell out a modest price in order to get to watch these videos before I decide to buy a toy. Not to mention that everybody likes watching sexy people masturbate (or, for toys that can be used with couples, have partnered sex). Making it educational, useful, and helpful at the same time? Yes, please!
Go both SexToyTester. Tell him to make more videos. Make your own similar videos. Some entrepreneur out there- start up this website idea of mine. Because seriously, you deserve to know what you're buying.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Porn Addiction? According To Who?
This post is largely a jump-off from this article about how the porn addiction portrayed in Kurt Cameron's new movie "Fireproof" is raising a lot of 'awareness' of such addiction.
First off, I still remember the good old days when I was in love with "Growing Pains". Mike Seaver had a best friend named 'Boner', something that amused my teenage self to no end. Or how about the episode where little Ben repeatedly called a phone sex hotline? For a girl who stumbled bewilderingly onto porn in her youth and had a lot of conflictions and guilt, that was a pretty precious episode to me, too. But now, of course, Kurt Cameron is uber-Christian . . . enough so that he refused to even kiss his onscreen costar in his new 'with God and some work, I saved my marriage' film "Fireproof". They had to bring in his real-life wife and some shadowy filming to get the scene. I try not to laugh at this fact. I try to tell myself that it's pretty amazing that he sticks to his principles that way and that he wants to remove himself from all temptation that kissing a strange woman might promote. Like I said, I try. I never said I succeeeded.
Even though it looks to be like a so-so acted, and very heavy-handed film with a big ol' "Christian" stamp all over it, it actually doesn't look half-bad, if you're really dead-set on watching a movie about relationships. My reaction is "Ugh", but then again, I've never cared for most love stories unless they seriously engage another genre and do it well. Maybe once I'm married or involved long-term, I'll suddenly garner an interest for these types of tales.
But I'm getting off-topic. What about the porn?
Ah, yes, porn. Bane of the Christians. And with a lot of good defenses of porn/erotica popping up (like 'How about the beautiful celebration of love and sex in "Song of Solomon"?' or 'What about educational movies?', etc.), about the only thing they can really latch onto is the whole "porn addiction" thing. Which, as I've stated before, is a real problem that affects a whole bunch of people and a lot of marriages. But then again, Christian perspectives are working from a viewpoint that condemns porn. Talking about the men and women who casually consume porn without becoming addicted or being adversely affected isn't part of the agenda.
It's interesting, actually . . . a little researching tells me that porn isn't the only thing breaking down the marriage in this movie, which makes me happy, at least. None of the sensationalism of, say, Lifetime's "Cyber Seduction: His Secret Life". But at the same time, Kurt Cameron's character isn't portrayed as being obsessed with porn. He watches it. He cleans out his browser's cache after watching it (although, when your wife screams and gives you a hard time about it, who wouldn't?). But I'm sorry. Addiction this isn't. And it's pretty scary that people are watching this film are coming out shaking their heads about the 'horrible addiction'.
The scariest thing, though, is the fact that, coinciding with the movie, Internetsafety.com is giving out a 30% discount on their porn-blocking software. Now, I'm totally a fan of discounts. I'm totally a fan of people realizing they have a problem and attacking it head-on. And at the same time, I'm upset that nobody is questioning the fact that porn-blocking software companies ARE companies, and they do have a vested interest in promoting the idea of porn addiction. Nobody seems to be taking a critical eye towards this fact. If hysteria and scare tactics are brought to light as tactics of the media to stay self-sustaining, then why can't we ask whether or not such filter companies might have something at stake in convincing people that porn addiction is hugely prevalent, that even occasional looking is addiction, and that it is such a strong force that nothing short of complete and total removal will help you?
Millions of Christians- men and women- watch porn or otherwise consume erotica, and feel it is consistent with their faith. Churches (dependent on tithings) and other religious anti-porn contingents (hired therapists, filtering companies, 'overcoming porn addiction with Christ' books, etc., etc.) can't exactly take that line. Where would they be, then? I'm not trying to say that Christians are motivated by money. I know a lot who aren't, at all, and who really want the best for their friends, family, and parishioners. But I think a we need to ask some serious questions here, and even more when we aren't Christian, but still are told we might suffer from porn addiction.
Who is benefiting from pathologizing you today? Who is requesting money to cure you of your diagnosed addiction, instead of telling you to practice some self-control instead of putting on blinders (which certainly don't work very well when commercials have half-naked chicks soaping up cars sexily)? Whose might like to guilt you straight to the "Porn Addiction" bookshelf at your local bookstore? Ask yourself these questions, and get back to me.
It's cool with me if you don't like porn. It's cool with me if you like porn but feel it's not so good for you and so you abstain. It's pretty dang cool with me if you like porn. But it ain't cool to let others make these decisions for you, especially when the person they're looking out for may not really be you.
Am I totally off-base here? I dunno . . . I'm tired and, for some reason, it's my third blog of the day (can we say 'no social life'?). Comments would be welcome!
First off, I still remember the good old days when I was in love with "Growing Pains". Mike Seaver had a best friend named 'Boner', something that amused my teenage self to no end. Or how about the episode where little Ben repeatedly called a phone sex hotline? For a girl who stumbled bewilderingly onto porn in her youth and had a lot of conflictions and guilt, that was a pretty precious episode to me, too. But now, of course, Kurt Cameron is uber-Christian . . . enough so that he refused to even kiss his onscreen costar in his new 'with God and some work, I saved my marriage' film "Fireproof". They had to bring in his real-life wife and some shadowy filming to get the scene. I try not to laugh at this fact. I try to tell myself that it's pretty amazing that he sticks to his principles that way and that he wants to remove himself from all temptation that kissing a strange woman might promote. Like I said, I try. I never said I succeeeded.
Even though it looks to be like a so-so acted, and very heavy-handed film with a big ol' "Christian" stamp all over it, it actually doesn't look half-bad, if you're really dead-set on watching a movie about relationships. My reaction is "Ugh", but then again, I've never cared for most love stories unless they seriously engage another genre and do it well. Maybe once I'm married or involved long-term, I'll suddenly garner an interest for these types of tales.
But I'm getting off-topic. What about the porn?
Ah, yes, porn. Bane of the Christians. And with a lot of good defenses of porn/erotica popping up (like 'How about the beautiful celebration of love and sex in "Song of Solomon"?' or 'What about educational movies?', etc.), about the only thing they can really latch onto is the whole "porn addiction" thing. Which, as I've stated before, is a real problem that affects a whole bunch of people and a lot of marriages. But then again, Christian perspectives are working from a viewpoint that condemns porn. Talking about the men and women who casually consume porn without becoming addicted or being adversely affected isn't part of the agenda.
It's interesting, actually . . . a little researching tells me that porn isn't the only thing breaking down the marriage in this movie, which makes me happy, at least. None of the sensationalism of, say, Lifetime's "Cyber Seduction: His Secret Life". But at the same time, Kurt Cameron's character isn't portrayed as being obsessed with porn. He watches it. He cleans out his browser's cache after watching it (although, when your wife screams and gives you a hard time about it, who wouldn't?). But I'm sorry. Addiction this isn't. And it's pretty scary that people are watching this film are coming out shaking their heads about the 'horrible addiction'.
The scariest thing, though, is the fact that, coinciding with the movie, Internetsafety.com is giving out a 30% discount on their porn-blocking software. Now, I'm totally a fan of discounts. I'm totally a fan of people realizing they have a problem and attacking it head-on. And at the same time, I'm upset that nobody is questioning the fact that porn-blocking software companies ARE companies, and they do have a vested interest in promoting the idea of porn addiction. Nobody seems to be taking a critical eye towards this fact. If hysteria and scare tactics are brought to light as tactics of the media to stay self-sustaining, then why can't we ask whether or not such filter companies might have something at stake in convincing people that porn addiction is hugely prevalent, that even occasional looking is addiction, and that it is such a strong force that nothing short of complete and total removal will help you?
Millions of Christians- men and women- watch porn or otherwise consume erotica, and feel it is consistent with their faith. Churches (dependent on tithings) and other religious anti-porn contingents (hired therapists, filtering companies, 'overcoming porn addiction with Christ' books, etc., etc.) can't exactly take that line. Where would they be, then? I'm not trying to say that Christians are motivated by money. I know a lot who aren't, at all, and who really want the best for their friends, family, and parishioners. But I think a we need to ask some serious questions here, and even more when we aren't Christian, but still are told we might suffer from porn addiction.
Who is benefiting from pathologizing you today? Who is requesting money to cure you of your diagnosed addiction, instead of telling you to practice some self-control instead of putting on blinders (which certainly don't work very well when commercials have half-naked chicks soaping up cars sexily)? Whose might like to guilt you straight to the "Porn Addiction" bookshelf at your local bookstore? Ask yourself these questions, and get back to me.
It's cool with me if you don't like porn. It's cool with me if you like porn but feel it's not so good for you and so you abstain. It's pretty dang cool with me if you like porn. But it ain't cool to let others make these decisions for you, especially when the person they're looking out for may not really be you.
Am I totally off-base here? I dunno . . . I'm tired and, for some reason, it's my third blog of the day (can we say 'no social life'?). Comments would be welcome!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
