In a follow up to the review of Pirates, the Digital Playground film by Joone, I would like to bring to attention the teaser trailer to Pirates II. While the computer graphics don't compare with it's Hollywood inspiration, the quality is top notch for any straight to video release, let alone for a porn. There is no nudity or any flesh at all in the trailer; however, it's getting me excited for the next installment in what I personally hope will be a trilogy.
You can check out the website at www.piratesxxx.com and it will be released in September of this year (in time for my birthday!) and there are rumors that a highly edited, R-rated version might hit some theatres.
Saturday 5 July 2008
Wednesday 4 June 2008
notes on dan savage
All men masturbate (most women do, all should), all men look at porn (many women do, more should), and all women need to get over the porn and masturbation thing. If you want a male in your life who you can order never to look at porn or masturbate—or if you want a male you can castrate—get a dog.
Speaking of all men look at porn, and my comments about The Blue Lagoon being one of the first "pornographic" images I was able to see, I'll talk about Playboy. My father has a subscription. Always has. Well as long as I can remember. They were also never extremely well hidden, allowing me (and the occasional friend) easy access for sneak peeks. My father never hid them, obviously, or I wouldn't have seen him reading it so many times. Also remember my mother handing me a picture of Rudolph Valentino to use in a 1920s project I was working on. It came from the magazine. It was part of an ad. She told me to use it, just don't mention where I got it at school. Sometimes she would even let me read interviews with celebrities I liked. I never looked at the photos in front of her but I did hold a copy and read it in front of my mother.
Maybe it's weird for people to think of their parents as owning porn, let alone allowing you to use it in middle school projects or lending it to you for an article, but honestly, I don't find it that weird. It's funny, every month my father's Playboy comes in the mail wrapped in black plastic hiding the cover. I'm pretty sure all my sisters knew what it was by the age of 10. I don't know if they've ever tried to look at it, but we've all seen him or my mother reading it (and yes they do actually read the articles).
Perhaps this is why I don't have any hangs up about porn. I have plenty of retro porn (usually novelty and not the kind that would get me off), I even bought some for my brother in law. I honestly do love watching strange porn and seeing what gets people off for I assume that every porn has at least one person who masturbates (or uses it later for fodder). I have no problem that male friends have porn and I find it hilarious when they go through the lengths to hide or deny it. All I can say is "dude, I know you masturbate. All sane men do, and men are visual. They need to look at something. Get over it."
You watch porn. You read porn. Video, magazine, book. Whatever. Just own up to it. Don't deny it.
Speaking of all men look at porn, and my comments about The Blue Lagoon being one of the first "pornographic" images I was able to see, I'll talk about Playboy. My father has a subscription. Always has. Well as long as I can remember. They were also never extremely well hidden, allowing me (and the occasional friend) easy access for sneak peeks. My father never hid them, obviously, or I wouldn't have seen him reading it so many times. Also remember my mother handing me a picture of Rudolph Valentino to use in a 1920s project I was working on. It came from the magazine. It was part of an ad. She told me to use it, just don't mention where I got it at school. Sometimes she would even let me read interviews with celebrities I liked. I never looked at the photos in front of her but I did hold a copy and read it in front of my mother.
Maybe it's weird for people to think of their parents as owning porn, let alone allowing you to use it in middle school projects or lending it to you for an article, but honestly, I don't find it that weird. It's funny, every month my father's Playboy comes in the mail wrapped in black plastic hiding the cover. I'm pretty sure all my sisters knew what it was by the age of 10. I don't know if they've ever tried to look at it, but we've all seen him or my mother reading it (and yes they do actually read the articles).
Perhaps this is why I don't have any hangs up about porn. I have plenty of retro porn (usually novelty and not the kind that would get me off), I even bought some for my brother in law. I honestly do love watching strange porn and seeing what gets people off for I assume that every porn has at least one person who masturbates (or uses it later for fodder). I have no problem that male friends have porn and I find it hilarious when they go through the lengths to hide or deny it. All I can say is "dude, I know you masturbate. All sane men do, and men are visual. They need to look at something. Get over it."
You watch porn. You read porn. Video, magazine, book. Whatever. Just own up to it. Don't deny it.
Friday 7 March 2008
a late night post that seems interesting...
I watched The Blue Lagoon again a few days ago. This time I was completely sober and was not participating or facilitating the drinking game for it. Perhaps its this clarity that made me realize a book devoted to The Blue Lagoon and it's shite sequel (Return to the Blue Lagoon) would be absolutely amazing! Seriously, the film contains some of the most amazing moments of gender play. It's also "porn" for pre-teens (those who find it on late and night and think "ooo penis"), such as myself. I remember watching it on TNT or TBS late at night when my parents let me sleep in front of the TV.
Anyway, the first point I want to make is the gender play with in the film. Richard (Christopher Atkins) is consistently found wearing articles of female Victorian clothing. This is, of course, set up in the film as the children and the short lived adult find a chest filled with women's clothing as they float along in the rescue boat.
However, one of the points of this film is to show how "natural" love and sex is. That children don't need outside forces to develop sexual feelings, that (especially today) the media or friends do not pressure teenagers into sex. That it is the "natural" process of growing up and that a man will inherently know that his penis is supposed to go into her vagina.
Well, when looking at the film from this point, I can't help but think of Richard's cross dressing. Both the child and adult actors are scene in articles of woman's clothings and I think this is a (perhaps a more unconcious) comment on how society forces us into stereotypical gender roles. With out adults and society telling Richard how to behave as a man he is stuck in the genderless stage of a child.
Children are not born knowing that pink is a color for girls and blue for boys. Many young boys will try to emulate their mother in various ways and only through societal pressure will they learn dresses are for girls pants for men. Since he has been on the island since he was about 9 (though the kid acts like he is mentally handicapped or only 5 years old) he doesn't have rules from society to obey. He is able to play on both sides.
I will expand on this later...
Anyway, the first point I want to make is the gender play with in the film. Richard (Christopher Atkins) is consistently found wearing articles of female Victorian clothing. This is, of course, set up in the film as the children and the short lived adult find a chest filled with women's clothing as they float along in the rescue boat.
However, one of the points of this film is to show how "natural" love and sex is. That children don't need outside forces to develop sexual feelings, that (especially today) the media or friends do not pressure teenagers into sex. That it is the "natural" process of growing up and that a man will inherently know that his penis is supposed to go into her vagina.
Well, when looking at the film from this point, I can't help but think of Richard's cross dressing. Both the child and adult actors are scene in articles of woman's clothings and I think this is a (perhaps a more unconcious) comment on how society forces us into stereotypical gender roles. With out adults and society telling Richard how to behave as a man he is stuck in the genderless stage of a child.
Children are not born knowing that pink is a color for girls and blue for boys. Many young boys will try to emulate their mother in various ways and only through societal pressure will they learn dresses are for girls pants for men. Since he has been on the island since he was about 9 (though the kid acts like he is mentally handicapped or only 5 years old) he doesn't have rules from society to obey. He is able to play on both sides.
I will expand on this later...
Sunday 30 December 2007
I Wish I Could Go Back to College
thanks to jezebel.com I just learned that according to a recent study, Generation X (which spans 1965-1985 and includes both authors of this blog) is having less sex than any other generation. We have "significantly fewer sexual partners and are less likely to be unfaithful than those who came before and after" us.
Well, I wonder where they are getting this from because either all the other generations are major sluts, or just my friends are the exception to the rule. I mean, what is the standard number of partners for the older and younger generations? I would like to compare that to my friends. Maybe it's just the liberal southern California college that I went to that leads me to think that the study is just talking to prudes, because at my university a "date" meant watching a "movie" in a dorm room and by movie I mean you started hooking up with in 5 minutes, or getting drunk, grinding on each other at a party, then going back to the available empty dorm room for some sexy time. Oh and both cases meant lots of alcohol was involved, obviously.
Of course, I have sat there while my grandfather has alluded to having sex with his girlfriend (or wanting to have sex since she's religiously celibate and he won't get married again), and had my mother hint at how the anxiety medication my father was on (and I am too) lead to some problems in bed, so I can say, while shuddering, I know the older generations are still getting it on, but are we really NOT getting it on? On top of that, it's those just younger than us, in college and high school, that are getting jiggy with it more regularly and with more partners.
Now, this relates directly to the big news that recently came out on the front cover of OK! Jamie Lynn Spears, Britney's little sis, is pregnant at 16. The best part of this story is how she was supposedly shocked that she was pregnant. I blame conservative abstinence only education for all this. Kids are taught not to have sex, which has been proven not to stop anything such as spread of infection or pregnancy. The problem is, not talking about it doesn't stop it. Not talking about it just leaves kids in the dark so they think two condoms are better than one. Which, we should all know, actually increases the likelihood of breaking and therefore pregnancy and disease.
My sister's watch such shows as Degrassi: the Next Generation, which supposedly "goes there" and teaches young adults the dangers of sexual activity. For example, in one episode Emma contracts chlamydia in her throat from giving head to a skeezy guy who then gives the std to his girlfriend and his girlfriend's best friend, all of whom who he is sexually involved with. However, it's curable and we never hear about it again after that episode. If we're "going there," why don't we deal with HIV/AIDs or even HPV. I have a few friends who've been "lucky" enough to get their cervix frozen. Now why don't we teach the younger generations this? That you can't cure everything? Or if you can cure something that it's not always painless or easy? Why don't they have HPV and cervical cancer scares on Degrassi? Why do the sex problems get pushed aside after an episode, wherein as the credits role we assume Emma gets some medication and is POOF all better? Why was the abortion episode banned from the air waves?
Most likely, Generation X has the least amount of sex and sexual partners because we grew up in the height of the AIDs pandemic. I grew up believing that if I had unprotected sex I could end up contracting HIV, Herpes, or another incurable disease, which to me, is much worse than getting pregnant. Generation Y isn't getting the same education. We can't rely on the government to get it through to them, so others need to step it up.
Maybe it's a good thing that we aren't having as much sex. Teen pregnancy is on the rise again, the CDC confirms it, meaning my generation helped lower it. I don't know if STD/STIs are on the rise, but I bet they are. I managed to get into my twenties with out a pregnancy or std scare, and I hope I can continue my good fortune into my thirties with out one either. Will the younger generation be the same? Luckily, my younger sisters are smart, and my parents are comfortable talking to us about such things so I'm pretty sure they'll be fine too. But will their friends?
Well, I wonder where they are getting this from because either all the other generations are major sluts, or just my friends are the exception to the rule. I mean, what is the standard number of partners for the older and younger generations? I would like to compare that to my friends. Maybe it's just the liberal southern California college that I went to that leads me to think that the study is just talking to prudes, because at my university a "date" meant watching a "movie" in a dorm room and by movie I mean you started hooking up with in 5 minutes, or getting drunk, grinding on each other at a party, then going back to the available empty dorm room for some sexy time. Oh and both cases meant lots of alcohol was involved, obviously.
Of course, I have sat there while my grandfather has alluded to having sex with his girlfriend (or wanting to have sex since she's religiously celibate and he won't get married again), and had my mother hint at how the anxiety medication my father was on (and I am too) lead to some problems in bed, so I can say, while shuddering, I know the older generations are still getting it on, but are we really NOT getting it on? On top of that, it's those just younger than us, in college and high school, that are getting jiggy with it more regularly and with more partners.
Now, this relates directly to the big news that recently came out on the front cover of OK! Jamie Lynn Spears, Britney's little sis, is pregnant at 16. The best part of this story is how she was supposedly shocked that she was pregnant. I blame conservative abstinence only education for all this. Kids are taught not to have sex, which has been proven not to stop anything such as spread of infection or pregnancy. The problem is, not talking about it doesn't stop it. Not talking about it just leaves kids in the dark so they think two condoms are better than one. Which, we should all know, actually increases the likelihood of breaking and therefore pregnancy and disease.
My sister's watch such shows as Degrassi: the Next Generation, which supposedly "goes there" and teaches young adults the dangers of sexual activity. For example, in one episode Emma contracts chlamydia in her throat from giving head to a skeezy guy who then gives the std to his girlfriend and his girlfriend's best friend, all of whom who he is sexually involved with. However, it's curable and we never hear about it again after that episode. If we're "going there," why don't we deal with HIV/AIDs or even HPV. I have a few friends who've been "lucky" enough to get their cervix frozen. Now why don't we teach the younger generations this? That you can't cure everything? Or if you can cure something that it's not always painless or easy? Why don't they have HPV and cervical cancer scares on Degrassi? Why do the sex problems get pushed aside after an episode, wherein as the credits role we assume Emma gets some medication and is POOF all better? Why was the abortion episode banned from the air waves?
Most likely, Generation X has the least amount of sex and sexual partners because we grew up in the height of the AIDs pandemic. I grew up believing that if I had unprotected sex I could end up contracting HIV, Herpes, or another incurable disease, which to me, is much worse than getting pregnant. Generation Y isn't getting the same education. We can't rely on the government to get it through to them, so others need to step it up.
Maybe it's a good thing that we aren't having as much sex. Teen pregnancy is on the rise again, the CDC confirms it, meaning my generation helped lower it. I don't know if STD/STIs are on the rise, but I bet they are. I managed to get into my twenties with out a pregnancy or std scare, and I hope I can continue my good fortune into my thirties with out one either. Will the younger generation be the same? Luckily, my younger sisters are smart, and my parents are comfortable talking to us about such things so I'm pretty sure they'll be fine too. But will their friends?
Wednesday 5 December 2007
There's a fine fine line
This is a theory on men and women and their sexual relationships that I've been sitting on for a long time.
The basis of all this is men have penises. I know, duh! But beyond that they ejaculate. They cum. They leave a mark. A discharge.
Women have vaginas. Holes. Vaginas are ultimate holes. If I read more Freud I could probably quote some part that says women are negative or empty compared to the man's penis. We have no phallus and ultimately are trying to achieve it in one way or another. That being said. This theory is most evident by the nearest numbers that visually match the vagina and the penis. 1 and 0.
Now that we have this straight, let me point out that I'm not some crazy anti woman kind of person. I consider myself quite feminist in most respects. However, this is based on many conversations with drunk girls crying to me about how easily guys can let go, and my . How men aren't so easily attached to women, relationships, virginity, and sex in general. To many, sex is a bodily function and nothing more. Whereas women put these higher in the emotional rating system.
Let's get back to men and women. Penises and vaginas. Ones and zeros. When having sex men put their dicks into us. They fill our "holes." They "complete" us by enacting what could, if planned/unprotected, would get you pregnant and ultimately allow you to complete the vicious psychoanalysis circle that Freud described. Women have no penis-women are castrated-women have babies to create a phallus and to stand in for the penis.
Whether or not a man actually cums in you, leaving his ejaculation physically, he is leaving it mentally and emotionally. He is also expelling all his "emotions" into you. Yes. Believe it. Into you. Men can walk away so easily because they leave any emotions or feelings they could have for you "in" you.
Think of it as a math equation. What would make a 1 a 0? Oh yes. A -1. So 1 + -1 = 1 - 1 = 0/ A man ejaculates his feelings (ejaculation and feelings both equally -1). A woman than absorbs it so 0 + -1 = 0 - 1 + -1. So a woman absorbs the evil negative emotions and (temporarily) gets to feel all shitty and the man gets to feel relatively normal but overall still on the "positive" side of it all.
The basis of all this is men have penises. I know, duh! But beyond that they ejaculate. They cum. They leave a mark. A discharge.
Women have vaginas. Holes. Vaginas are ultimate holes. If I read more Freud I could probably quote some part that says women are negative or empty compared to the man's penis. We have no phallus and ultimately are trying to achieve it in one way or another. That being said. This theory is most evident by the nearest numbers that visually match the vagina and the penis. 1 and 0.
Now that we have this straight, let me point out that I'm not some crazy anti woman kind of person. I consider myself quite feminist in most respects. However, this is based on many conversations with drunk girls crying to me about how easily guys can let go, and my . How men aren't so easily attached to women, relationships, virginity, and sex in general. To many, sex is a bodily function and nothing more. Whereas women put these higher in the emotional rating system.
Let's get back to men and women. Penises and vaginas. Ones and zeros. When having sex men put their dicks into us. They fill our "holes." They "complete" us by enacting what could, if planned/unprotected, would get you pregnant and ultimately allow you to complete the vicious psychoanalysis circle that Freud described. Women have no penis-women are castrated-women have babies to create a phallus and to stand in for the penis.
Whether or not a man actually cums in you, leaving his ejaculation physically, he is leaving it mentally and emotionally. He is also expelling all his "emotions" into you. Yes. Believe it. Into you. Men can walk away so easily because they leave any emotions or feelings they could have for you "in" you.
Think of it as a math equation. What would make a 1 a 0? Oh yes. A -1. So 1 + -1 = 1 - 1 = 0/ A man ejaculates his feelings (ejaculation and feelings both equally -1). A woman than absorbs it so 0 + -1 = 0 - 1 + -1. So a woman absorbs the evil negative emotions and (temporarily) gets to feel all shitty and the man gets to feel relatively normal but overall still on the "positive" side of it all.
Tuesday 4 December 2007
Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen, Hello Love
Ok, this isn't technically related to porn or musical theatre, but it is incredibly relevent to all you men out there.
Losing your virginity after the age of 20 can lead to sexual dysfunction later in life.
I am not making this up. Columbia University, the proper one (in NYC) has just released a study that men who lose their virginity later "tend to be more likely to experience sexual dysfunction problems later in life."
I find this disturbing for one reason: Many religions support abstinence til marriage, correct? And western society advocates marriage later and later in life.
So how are sketchy men with mid-life crises able to fulfill their mistresses?
I ask because I am approaching mistress age. I'm old enough to be legal, but still young enough to look good. And admittedly, I love the idea of a sugar daddy. But let's face it, unless you have an arrangement that allows you to have a bit on the side as well, aren't you just dooming yourself to pathetic evenings of premature ejaculation and extensive nose hair?
On the flip side of the coin, scientists also noted similar results in men who lost their virginity too young. They haven't published figures for the too young results yet, but I'd be curious to know how young is too young? And are they dysfunctional later in life because they used up all the good spunk on other stupid teenagers?
Girls, this appears to mean that if we want a fulfilling sex life as we age, we need to find the half a dozen men who lost their virginity after the age of sixteen and don't still have it today. I'm not optimistic, are you?
My plan is to constantly have a string of lovers aged 25. I should be good, right?
If you don't believe me, read this: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/Sex/story?id=3932047&page=1
Losing your virginity after the age of 20 can lead to sexual dysfunction later in life.
I am not making this up. Columbia University, the proper one (in NYC) has just released a study that men who lose their virginity later "tend to be more likely to experience sexual dysfunction problems later in life."
I find this disturbing for one reason: Many religions support abstinence til marriage, correct? And western society advocates marriage later and later in life.
So how are sketchy men with mid-life crises able to fulfill their mistresses?
I ask because I am approaching mistress age. I'm old enough to be legal, but still young enough to look good. And admittedly, I love the idea of a sugar daddy. But let's face it, unless you have an arrangement that allows you to have a bit on the side as well, aren't you just dooming yourself to pathetic evenings of premature ejaculation and extensive nose hair?
On the flip side of the coin, scientists also noted similar results in men who lost their virginity too young. They haven't published figures for the too young results yet, but I'd be curious to know how young is too young? And are they dysfunctional later in life because they used up all the good spunk on other stupid teenagers?
Girls, this appears to mean that if we want a fulfilling sex life as we age, we need to find the half a dozen men who lost their virginity after the age of sixteen and don't still have it today. I'm not optimistic, are you?
My plan is to constantly have a string of lovers aged 25. I should be good, right?
If you don't believe me, read this: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/Sex/story?id=3932047&page=1
Monday 3 December 2007
Hold Me Bat boy
Taken from Fleshbot:
"In what just may be the most stunning piece of medical research ever published, we're informed that staring at boobs for just five minutes every day can actually prolong your life. So what if the Weekly World News isn't exactly known as a reliable source for cutting-edge scientific breakthroughs?"
It's from the Weekly World News, so obviously unresearched but quite entertaining nonetheless.
I'll raise a glass and hope it is true, because XXXtina and I will be all over that, like whoa.
"In what just may be the most stunning piece of medical research ever published, we're informed that staring at boobs for just five minutes every day can actually prolong your life. So what if the Weekly World News isn't exactly known as a reliable source for cutting-edge scientific breakthroughs?"
It's from the Weekly World News, so obviously unresearched but quite entertaining nonetheless.
I'll raise a glass and hope it is true, because XXXtina and I will be all over that, like whoa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)