Tag Archives: porn

Very Short Stories – Prometheus

♦ You may remember I posted something recently about Very Short Stories, the idea of writing flash fiction that fits on one side of an ordinary Post-It note. I shared my first attempt, too, a bit of a silly-but-sexy piece inspired by coffee (but not written whilst drinking it).

Heck, it’s even caught on a little bit, with bloggers keen to try their own versions and with some, like my friend Innocent Loverboy, having finished their Very Short Stories already. If anyone else has done one, just let me know! I’d love to read it and to let people know about it here.

In any case, I thought it was high time I did another. Again, I’m showing you both the actual Post-It and then giving a transcription for accessibility purposes…

image

“You stumbled into my Friday night a repentant Prometheus, bringing fire back to my belly. You left the bar with my number and a taxi fare. By Monday you could mould me like clay, breathing life into my cock at a whisper from your lips. Thursday evening saw the perfect retribution, as I chained you spread-eagled to my bed. Your liver untouched, I gorged myself on your cunt.”

Again, not a perfect tale, but again un-edited (except a word or two as I was still writing) and teeny-tiny. This one is a mere 55 words compared to the previous 62. My prompt, if you hadn’t already guessed, was the name Prometheus. Although I was inspired by finding the name out of context, I love the myth and soon ideas and analogies came racing to mind.

I’m quite pleased, though I wonder if I might be trying to do too much in too small a space (that may sort of be the concept, I suppose) and it’s certainly good to try some straight-up erotica rather than last time’s playful pretend porn.

What do you think of it? ♦

Very Short Stories

♦ I popped into WH Smith’s recently to pick up a much needed new pencil case (my old one smells awfully of old curry, don’t ask) and some other stationery things. After all, with Eroticon 2014 coming up, I need to be kitted out to write, write, write (and not smell like old curry).

While there, I found a notebook that’s perfect for taking with me, as well as this interesting little thing…

Very Short Stories - Cover

It’s not, as it first appears, a notebook. It’s a tiny, adorable little pad of post-it notes. I just don’t need post-it notes in any way, but the cover of the pad caught my attention. “Very short stories,” it says. Sure, it goes on to say “about milk, cheese and bread”, but the idea of very short stories wouldn’t let go.

I didn’t need to actually write my shopping list, after all. And the pad was small enough to keep inside my new pencil case, meaning I could write any time. And the longer I stood there, the more I saw the little pad of “very short stories” as a challenge.

Dammit, I could write very short stories in it! I could! And they’d be sexy and tiny and I could make it work. And even if I couldn’t, the exercise was bound to be interesting, worth blogging and undoubtedly very useful for honing my skills at writing bigger, longer stories.

So I bought it. Today, a few days later, I decided to give it a go. I logged on to Twitter, determined to take the first word of inspiration that hit me. What follows is the result (in picture form for authenticity, then transcribed for accessibility). It took me about three minutes, from that first word I used as my muse to drawing the little diamond signature in the bottom.

Very Short Stories - The Coffee Story

“Alone together at last. The long day had led to aching anticipation for this moment. I licked my lips, savouring the view. Strong, dark, patiently waiting for me and covered in cream… I had fantasised about you, but now I worried you were too hot to handle. Taking the plunge, I took you in my hand… And drank you. Thank Christ for coffee.”

And there you have it. Perfect? No. Fantastic? No. But at a mere 62 words and in a mere 3 minutes or less on a theme chosen at random from a word found on Twitter and essentially unedited, I’m quite pleased with it. I’m certainly going to write more of these. It was a nice challenge to keep it ambiguous until the last (calling coffee “he” or “she” seemed disingenuous) and I like the playful idea.

Maybe the Very Short Story (flash fiction on teeny-tiny post-its) will catch on and bloggers and writers everywhere will join in! What do you think, could you write a story on a post-it note? And what are your thoughts on mine? ♦

Want to see the next Very Short Story of mine? It’s called Prometheus.

Blacksilk, Porn User?

Or, what’s the use of using “user”?

♦ Those of you who keep up with sex positive news may have seen the ruckus caused recently when BBC’s Newsnight changed the title of one of their commenters from “Dr Jude Roberts” to “Jude Roberts – Porn User”. There’s since been an article by Dr Roberts herself about it, in which she explains that she doesn’t feel the slight was intended or malicious, nor does she even feel it as a slight. It’s just A Thing That Happened.

But the “porn user” incident, along with the recent debate around porn filters, made me really think about the phrase used itself. Porn user.

Porn user?

"Porn User"  - Dictionary definitions of "User"

I find it such an unnatural turn of phrase. Surely we don’t “use” porn? We watch porn. Just like, even if you wank to it, we read erotica, not “use” it (but honestly no-one is talking about erotica here, it’s pretty clear that’s not what they mean when they say “porn”). No-one would say “use”, surely?

Indeed, when I asked people, the response was that they’d describe it as they “watch porn” not are a “porn user”. I think most people would, in fact. So I find it weird, and unsettling, that the media and the government seem to have a picked a different phrase entirely.

It’s clear that Jude Roberts feels the same way:

I’m happy to be labeled a ‘porn user’. I am a user of porn. Although the connotations of the word ‘user’ are somewhat unnecessary. I use porn in the same way I use other forms of culture – for stimulation and entertainment. These, after all, are what culture is for. And make no mistake, porn is a form of culture, just like any other. Just like TV, films, books, computer games, theatre and the visual arts, porn reflects and reflects on the ideas, concerns and attitudes of the culture in which it’s produced.

So why do we treat it so differently?

Why indeed?

Some suggested that it’s because porn comes in many forms: moving images, still images (both photographic and drawn), the written word… But so do, for example, cartoons and no-one would ever say “cartoon user”, even though cartoon can mean film or book or animated or still.

Some suggested that “porn user” is similar to calling someone an “Internet user” or computer user as above, but that just can’t be the case. Surely, if it’s similar to anything, it should be like a “TV viewer”. You certainly do “use” (or browse, of course) the Internet, but “using” the Internet is a far different experience to watching porn (even when you get to your porn via the Internet, like many of us).

And while we often certainly “use” porn to get off, I’m still certain the correct verb for just looking at some porn is “watch”. Just think of it as a point-and-click adventure game. When you mouse over the pixellated porno on the screen, would the pop-up text say “Use Porn”? Really? Come on, no.

I mean, technically, sure, “use” is a pretty general word that can apply as a sort of supergroup to lots of better, more specific words like “read” or “eat”. Technically, you “use” books, you “use” food, you “use” signs. But no-one says that. It’s unnatural to describe watching a (porn) film as using a (porn) film just as it is to describe eating food as using food.

So, why do the media and government, despite what seems to be all common sense, want us to be porn “users”? Is it to make it sound a bit like a drug habit? I think it miiiight be!

Because I remain convinced that this word has been chosen purposefully. Because the goverment, and certain sections of the meeja, has an agenda. Because I think “user” really has some connotations that are being intended here, as per the dictionary quote above. Drug use, for one. Perhaps “user” as in emotional use. Drugs, abuse, someone who does something dirty, something wrong, something exploitative. I’m convinced that employing the word “use” in this way serves to try to render watching porn as grubby, grimy and akin to substance “abuse”.

In fact I’d say the anti-porn types, like the government, are certainly using (in the exploiting sense) the connotations of the word quite well. So, I agree with Dr Jude when she says the connotations of “user” are “unnecessary”, but I just can’t go as far as her in saying I’m happy to be labelled a “porn user”, an addict, an exploiter. And thus Blacksilk, Porn Viewer, I shall remain. ♦

I’m Bringing Sexy Back (Bacon)

Bacon Knickers

♦ Weep, friends, weep! A tragedy has befallen us! It seems that the mighty (and indeed meaty) Baconlube has been discontinued at Lovehoney. *Sobs*

OK, so when I reviewed Baconlube this time last year, I wasn’t the most wowed ever at its baconosity, but I’m sad to see it go. It. Was. Bacon. Flavoured. Lubricant. I mean, that’s just amazing. That’s just the kind of thing that makes my heart soar. I love the junction between sex and pop culture and I love to see sex not taken entirely seriously. Sure, you can still get the stuff at the main Baconlube site, but it’s not quite the same. It’s the end of a delicious, bacony era.

So, in sombre memorial of the passing of Baconlube in Britain, I’m finally posting some pictures that I found in celebration of sex-n-bacon way back when it was first released over here.

Look, don’t sigh. It was hard to find these. It had suddenly just occurred to me that the Internet loves naked people and the Internet loves bacon (possibly even more), so the tubes should be full of greasy, poorly shot bacon-related wank-fodder, right?

Not so. Behold, the entire lot of “sexy” bacon-porn I found in my arduous search. You’re welcome.

Bacon Bra

Literally (bite me) everyone and their mum has seen this picture, but it’s a classic. Warning: if you already think this one sucks, you may not want to continue scrolling down…
UPDATE: I have been remiss in my duty! In my search I missed this bacon bra picture, this pretty one and this super hot one!

Now some entrants from the Tacky Bedroom Porn category. Check out that bacon shine around her nethers in the second!

Bakini

Bakini Babe

Mmm… fat-coated…

Don’t worry, the next one is a far more professional approach to draping yourself in dead pig. Thank God, I was worried my blog was going to start looking unclassy.

Draped in Bacon

For those of us on the kinkier side, fear not. I have not forbacon you. This woman has a GLORIOUS BACON WAND and she looks very much like she wants to whip you with it.

Bacon Wand

Is that a thing? Is there a “being caned with a stick of purest bacon” fetish? Well, if there wasn’t before, there is now. But fuck, I’ve seen an entire subreddit dedicated to dragons having sex with cars today, so I’ll bloody believe anything.

And don’t think those who prefer man meat with their, er, meat have been left out either. Oh, no. Whilst barely a dozen pieces of bacon-based pr0n seem to exist on the Net, the men are getting in on the act too. If you do not love the latter of these pictures, I just don’t know what’s wrong with you.

Man BaconSexy Back

Because that is fucking fantastic. And, let’s not forget why we started this whole post (why, oh, why did we start this whole post?), it’s in the exact damn spirit of Baconlube too! Not taking yourself too seriously, not being po-faced about sex and sexuality and loving bacon far more than is reasonable. Winning.

Baconlube, you may be gone from my favourite retailer but I, and these bizarre meat-festooned naked folk from the Internet, salute you.

Anyone else horny hungry? ♦

Sour Apples

Or, Why I Didn’t Buy an iPhone Yesterday

♦ As you might have read on my Twitter, I bought a smartphone yesterday. It’s my first one and I’m pretty darned excited about it. So far it does pretty much everything I need and it’ll allow me to keep on top of all you lot (wink, wink) whilst on the bus or during breaks at work or whatever. Choosing one was slightly complicated, but luckily I had a housemate to help and also there was at least one major brand I could rule out instantly. Apple.

Why? Well, I’ll be honest, not all of the reasons were as ethicsy as the one I’m going to give you here, for a start I’m not an Apple fan in general and I find their products a little poseur-ish, but one of the big reasons was Apple’s attitude to sex, speech and the ‘obscene’.

Now, I’m not a tech-blogger, so bear with me here if my information is a little off in certain places, but the crux of the matter is straightforward enough and one that I came across from my interest in sex-related news. Basically, according to Apple-Man himself, Steve Jobs, the company has a “moral responsibility” to keep its devices free from ‘questionable content’. Essentially, it goes like this: Apple start getting uppity about certain apps in their App Store being ‘overtly sexual’ or ‘objectionable’ and remove a slew of apps from their products. One user writes Jobs an email rightly telling him that Apple are not “moral police” and Jobs replies with “We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone. Folks who want porn can buy and [sic] Android phone.”

Sure, it’s his company and his store and he can do whatever he likes with it, but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to call him a twat for it and then refuse to buy his stuff. As far as Jobs is concerned, porn is objectionable, adult content is offensive and we all need to have “freedom from porn“. Yes, that’s right. From.

Sample things Apple believes violates its moral sensibilities? An app called Wobble that lets you wobble certain parts of an image. Yes, admittedly it was marketed rather towards breastacular jiggle physics, but hey, these guys aren’t stupid, it’s pretty obvious that’s what a fair few people would use it for and it didn’t come with any images installed. Another fine example is that certain nippletastic magazines will have to censor their content to fit into the App Store.

Wobbling breasts? Nipples? I mean, nipples? These are “objectionable” now? OK, offensive to some, surely, but these are a “some” that probably won’t be looking for adult apps anyway except in a NIMBY kind of way. But repugnant? Unpleasant? After all, these are all in the definition of objectionable. Yes, Steve Jobs has the right to restrict content in his products just as we have the right to be informed about it and stay far away from his puritanism, but I don’t think he should.

After all, who is he to decide what is objectionable? Who is he to decide what is porn and what is not? Heck, people have been going over the art/porn debate for years and still not come up with a line we can agree on. Why can’t I just buy whichever apps I want and I can be  the judge of whether porn or nipples or whatever is suitable for me. For example, I could decide instantly that gay make-out scenes are absolutely great and not worthy of immediate censorship followed by a sheepish re-instatement when people call them out on it.

Apple can’t decide for me what it is appropriate for me to see. Apple can’t have moral responsibility over all of its users, not just for reasons of freedom but for the fact that logistically it’s impossible. The fact that it is even trying is laughable and abhorrent. Self-imposed arbiters of moral content never go well. Hey, we’re all adults here, not that that’s stopped Apple trying to make us ‘think of the children‘. Yup, they’ve filed a patent to ban users sending or receiving “objectionable” (there’s that word again) content via text, presumably in a bid to either prevent sexting or take over the world via Newspeak. Probably bad news if you live in Scunthorpe.

The Gawker article linked somewhere above says it perfectly when it says:

“Jobs’ issue seems to be thinking Apple can and should write the moral code for the tens of millions of global iPhone and iPad customers, who hail from a hugely diverse array of backgrounds. (…) Shackling them to a sadly homogenized digital marketplace built around Jobs’ personal tastes — grossly violent movies are OK, line-drawings of breasts in the 17-years-and-older section are verboten — seems to fly in the face of the CEO’s professional responsibilities. Both commercial and, yes, moral. “

So, there you have it. I didn’t buy an iPhone not just because I’m a PC-girl but because Apple, and particularly its CEO Steve Jobs, seem to have taken it upon themselves to ‘purify’, bowdlerise and censor content they find to be offensive or problematic in some weirdly twisted attempt at nanny-knows-best. It’s not right. I’m an adult and dammit I can see adult content if I want. I can make my own decisions about what is “objectionable” and what is not and I can make them a damn sight better than Jobs and his somewhat gung-ho approach to such monstrosities as nipples, gay kissing and simple human communication. Censorship is what is “repugnant” here. Sexual liberty is all the freedom that I need here. Freedom to, not freedom from.

Hey, but you know what? “Folks who want porn can buy and [sic] Android phone”, so guess what, Steve Jobs? I did. ♦

Living Dolls

I took an intellectual history class in my final year of university. I’ve always been interested in that kind of thing and talking to Fractal had increased my interest in it even further. It was, as I hoped it would be, intensely interesting, largely because we studied several ideas which I enjoyed analytically ripping to shreds: Sartre and existentialism, Foucault and subjectivism, de Beauvoir and feminism… In looking at feminism we were assigned to write an essay about one particular course text, an article by author Natasha Walter.

It was frankly ludicrous; a pile of über-feminist nonsense about socialisation and inequality and women in the sciences. It was fun to pull to pieces. So, skimming over an article on Comment is Free today (which attacks another angle from Walter’s book and is pretty darned good and well worth a look), I was almost gruesomely pleased to see a link to an extract from Walter’s new book, Living Dolls. I figured I’d take a look.

Walter describes the situation of forty-year-old Jim, a “self-confessed pornography addict”. Jim came across porn before the advent of the Internet, finding his father’s dirty magazines, and later videos, at a young age. As he attended a boys’ school, he devoured this material obsessively long before having any real contact with real girls. He found himself “unable to think of women except as potential pornography” and looked at them “in a purely sexual way”.

He finds the porn now available on the Internet to be, as Walter puts it, “dehumanising to women”, saying “The stuff I saw as a kid was what we called hardcore, but the idea in the text alongside was that it was based on mutual consent — mutual pleasure — but what I see now is more male domination”. He claims young men are seeing worse and worse images which change their attitude to sex for life.

Jim now finds nothing which can match up to porn. His long-term partner left him because he only knows how to “perform” sex, not feel it. Obviously, she is now very wary of the effects of pornography and its “threat” to intimacy. She says that its prevalence means that “all the innocence is lost”.

Where to start with this? Firstly, I *hardly* think that the personal testimonies of just two people who have had a bad experience with the consumption of pornography are a sound basis for any kind of theory or any claims about the effect of porn on *anyone* except the two themselves. Anecdotal ‘evidence’ is not exactly intellectually rigorous, is it, Miss Walter? (What’s the betting that that should actually be a Ms.?)

So the man is terrible with women, obsessed with porn and impersonal in bed and that is clearly and solely the fault of his early contact with the dreaded vice of seeing some people have some sex? It couldn’t *possibly* be one or more of the *many* other elements in a person’s personality and background? When someone is predisposed to obsession, do we blame the object he is obsessed with? Always? *Really*?

We also find Walter sneaking words into her witnesses mouths (“dehumanising to women”) and even blithely inserting her own viewpoint as if blessed by the speakers, attempting to connect it to their views on the matter, saying: “not only is the tone of pornography so often reliant on real or imaginary abuse of women…”

Sorry, *is* it? You can’t just say that kind of thing without some substantiation, seriously! Find me something to back that up, I’m certainly not going to take it as true. If I browse aimlessly for porn I will *not* find the vast majority, or even the majority, of it based on abusing women in any way. Heck, I only really find that stuff if I *look* for it and that’s because I happen to *like* it and I happen to be particularly searching in that specific niche. And believe me, it *is* a niche. BDSM is by no means mainstream. So, where on Earth is all this supposed abuse?

Jim says he now sees “male domination” where he once saw consent. Again, I’m really looking for some kind of substance to this claim. Show me it. Go on. Not to mention the fact that the term ‘male domination’ is so incredibly subjective and ambiguous.

In any case, Walter takes a bit of breather to talk about the prevalence of porn. She claims that “once upon a time, someone who was truly fascinated by pornography might have found, with some difficulty, 10, or 20, or 100 images to satisfy themselves”, whereas nowadays the Internet means we can get tons in just one click. I may be wrong here, but I really think that Walter has absolutely no idea what she’s talking about. Pornography was never as hard to get hold of as she thinks, OK, so the Internet certainly has made it easier, but it isn’t as if we were all innocent wee bairns before that. Has she never heard of the ‘photography clubs’ that used to be meeting places for men to share piles of dirty photos with each other? Where does she think all those hundreds and hundreds of photos of Bettie Page in bondage came from? Long before the Internet, my dear.

She claims that many people are now seeing strangers have sex before even vaguely having sex with anyone themselves. And? So, what? *I’d* certainly seen pornography before I ever had sex or even did *anything* sexual. Up to that point it was kisses only. What harm has it done me then, hmm? Not a jot. And it’s not just me. Chances are that you saw sex before having sex too. Did it do you harm? Likely not. The thing is, Walter, is that yes, many people do see sex before having it, but that’s hardly a new phenomenon. It’s been going on for a few years now. This generation of children are not the first to experience this. Quite a large number of my generation, the one before the current one, did too. So why aren’t we all sexually messed up? Why haven’t we seen a soaring rate of people with bizarre, impersonal, degrading notions about sex, love and relationships?

Don’t you think it better that children learn about sex before attempting it? Isn’t it better to learn how to operate the gears and the brakes before you get behind the wheel on the M4? Seeing sex can only help young people understand how the whole thing works, as long as they remember to take certain things with a pinch of salt. Coupled with a good sex education and support, it can only help them prepare for the real thing with less trepidation and upset.

Walter claims she rejects the classic feminist view of pornography which says it “necessarily involves or encourages abuse of women” and that she can see why some are now trying to create a pornography which gives women more opportunities. However, she sees porn as a threat to “many erotic relationships” and as characterised by “a vein of real contempt for women”, encouraging men to see women as objects and women to focus on “their sexual allure rather than their imagination or pleasure”.

Again, I’ve no idea where she’s getting this idea of contempt from, nor does she back up her claim that men see women as objects due to porn. Do I really need to rant about objectification again or does everyone already know what I’m going to say? I’ll assume the latter, but to sum up: sexual objectification does not exist on such a huge scale as many idiots imagine and where it does exist it is in no way more malignant than buying an apple.

The part about women focusing on their looks though, that she can back up – by talking to some university girls who agree they’d never have sex without shaving their ladybits. Wow. Good evidence. They want to look good for their men, how despicable! Those poor, poor creatures! Where is the harm in trying to look good for your sexual partner, hmm? Don’t we all do it? Don’t men do it? I know damn well they do, though perhaps without so much preening and fussing. What is wrong with trying to be more beautiful? If a woman wants to go and shave or put on make-up or even get bigger boobs because she wants to look better, why not? Walter seems to want to deprive women of the power to improve themselves physically and the right to alter their own bodies. Both sexes have wanted to be more attractive since the dawn of time, now it is easier for everyone to actually achieve that.

And apparently women focus on their looks rather than their own pleasure. Do they? *Really?* That’s why all those magazines like Cosmopolitan and Scarlet never tell you how to enjoy having sex, right? That’s why they never have, *without fail*, an article *every issue* telling you how to make your orgasms better or how to feel more pleasure in bed or how ‘your man’ can make you come more easily. Frankly, if there are women out there who are sublimating their own pleasure to look good, more fool them, they can hardly blame men for their own lack of sense.

She also writes of porn: “no wonder we have seen the rise of the idea that erotic experience will necessarily involve, for women, a performance in which they will be judged visually.” For women? Not men then? Not any? Never? Sorry, are you saying that men are the only ones who care about how their potential partner looks before deciding whether or not to fuck them? Bollocks. Men are judged on their looks just as much as women are. Look at Sex and the City and its constant references to big packages.

Secondly, the judging doesn’t really go all that far. Men don’t really care all that much about cellulite or a spot here and there or hair where there shouldn’t be, on the whole (yes, I do know that makes an awful pun, I’m leaving it there :P). Fractal didn’t care if I’d shaved or not, though he preferred the smooth look. When I asked Crush about this the other day he said he preferred my legs, and between them, to be smooth because it felt nicer, but he didn’t really care about my armpits. And? I prefer him to have recently washed his hair because it feels nicer. Is that a crime? Don’t we have the right to prefer things of other people? Don’t they then have the right to conform to these preferences if they want? Besides which, I know damn well that when it comes down to it, and by it I really do mean ‘it’, no-on cares if there’s stubble on your crotch because everyone’s too damn busy having fun.

The misleading, misdirected and almost entirely anecdotal talk then turns to lap dancing and prostitution. Ooh, I can see *this* is going to go well. Ellie is a girl who turned to the former when she wanted to be an actress and jobs were hard to get hold of. I’m not entirely sure what Walter thinks her story is trying to tell us, but it’s telling *me* that lap dancing is a growth market which the pretty and unashamed can make some money in, whether or not they might have to, shock horror, get a fake tan and dress like a tramp. Woe upon this poor woman and her completely free choice to make a decent amount of money on her body by stripping, an industry which, by the way, has very limited places for men.

Next we have Angela, a woman who turned to chat rooms to find no-strings encounters with men. Oddly enough, when she met random strangers on the Internet for casual sex she found that they were only interested in, would you believe it, casual sex. Which she then gave them, willingly. I think this story is trying to suggest that men these days are corrupted beast who ask for anal on the first encounter, but what it says to *me* is that chat rooms are rarely the place for a serious relationship and that many people expect casual sex to be about casual sex. Angela didn’t find her experiences with promiscuity all that engaging, fulfilling or empowering, so did she quit? No, she started to charge them money for it, prostituting herself. Of course, how silly of me.

So, from what this long extract tells me, this is going to be a rip-roaring book full of anecdotes, lies, misleading statistics, soundbites, wrong-headed theorising and, of course, cherry-picking. I mean, you did notice how all those quoted fit nicely into Natasha Walter’s own view of the world, right? Wasn’t she lucky to only find people who agreed with her!

It’s all a load of old tossycock, as Bernard Black would say. Walter wants to present a world where society’s increased openness, freedom and access to information leads the creators of pornography and the debasers of women via the media and adult entertainment to encourage men to objectify, degrade and mistreat women as the women themselves play the living doll and pander to their whims ever unaware of their own self-harm and corruption. It’s dark stuff, but thankfully entirely untrue.

Admittedly, this is just an extract, but it seems the book as a whole is going to be poisonous, harmful nonsense full of the usual narrow-minded scare tactics about sex, youth and the Internet, the usual feminist twisting and misogyny-tinted glasses and the usual dose of “young people these days” and  “Oh Noes! Teh Future!”. It’s almost like Walter isn’t aware that they were claiming society was apocalyptically debased centuries ago.

Stop whining about the Meeja and inequality and go and have an ice cream or something. ♦

In a Bind

Red Rope

♦ So, having been browsing the Net for some years now, and those recent years putting the Net to its proper use: porn, I’ve obviously come across a fair few different kinks in that time. Bondage is a good one. Rope is obviously very useful for all that. But that Japanese rope bondage business? Until now I’ve never been interested.

You’d think it’d be different, right? I mean, what with Japan being one of my ‘things’, and it being very aesthetic and all. It certainly makes for some vrey nice pictures, like the one above. But it’s always come across as being so pretentious, complicated and stuffy. If you don’t know all the lingo (probably hideously badly pronounced by most practitioners anyway) and the correct knots and all that jazz, you’re not worth the trouble.

*However*, I recently came across a few pages that changed my mind. See, what they don’t tell you is that its all really very easy. At least the basics. And that there are plenty of people who do it without all the surrounding uppitiness. These pages? They would be here, here and here.

They make it seem A) easy, B) actually useful for kinky bondage sex and not just looking pretty and ‘exotic’, and C) afforable, as the author says you can use just about any rope, not just the expensive specialist stuff, including stuff from B&Q or whatever. He has lots of tips on how to make this all not only erotic in the way the rope moves against the skin but also on how you can adapt it to actually bind your partner.

Fractal’s heard before that rope between your legs is supposed to be very good, so he reckons we’ll have to at least try the karada on me. I’ll let you know if one day we do ;)

Until then I’m off to deviantART to look up some more kinbaku porn art… ♦

How to Dress for Work ;)

Fedora Girl

.
♦ There’s something about this girl, and I think it’s her outfit. She has a nice body, yes, but I’ve seen mildly-pixelly nice bodies like hers before. It’s gotta be the fact that she’s nude except those heels, the oddly but sexily positioned tie (which looks nicely like a choker from the front) and the fedora.

Especially the fedora. And not just cos it’s a frickin’ cool hat, which it is, but because it mostly covers her eyes, obscures her face, makes her look sexy, mysterious and sort of dangerous. I like this video lots, it’s quite a shame it’s so short :( ♦