Personally, I suggest "Duck Tape"

And this isn't even the most extreme example of "what's the point" swimwear at this site. (Click photo to go there.)

You could pare these sticky triangles with their selection of "string ONLY" swimwear which might make you street-legal.

Personally, though, this is the sort of "absurdly obscene" clothing that makes me snicker instead of stare, and frankly, I think full frontal nudity is less of an offense against whatever community standards there might be than these bits of tape that might well be legally sufficient coverage in some jurisdictions.

That's the irony, of course, and that's why I draw your attention to this. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the trashy, nearly naked blond. Nothing whatsoever. Permalink to full story.

Retro Punk Pinkup By Ariel McMillion framed artwork at ImageKind.com

One reason for this blog is that it gives me the place to put wonderful, sexy things when I run across them. Ariel McMillion is a fellow ImageKind Gallery owner, and has quite a selection of his pinup art for your enjoyment. Hey, if you own a bar and need some great art to spice it up - check out his gallery.

Retro Punk Pinkup By Ariel McMillion :

Originally featured as full-page pinup art in Slitz magazine, Stockholm, Sweden, this alluring piece features a rose-haired, tattooed, lollipop-sucking nude beauty at the wheel of a classic American gas-guzzler, framed in celluloid the color of money. Can little Johnny say "decadence"?

Now, I was intending to brag about my own art, but when I got there, there were kudos in my inbox from Ariel, and I had to go look. Well, I liked what I saw well enough to give him top billing, but now it's my turn. I've just uploaded a couple of new images, and I'd like to show you this one in particular.


This is Eve. And at 36x27" it's just the thing to turn your rec room into a proper bar. It's one of my earlier photomanipulations, and I was surprised and delighted to find it again. By the way, this is probably the perfect "apartment-warming" gift for the young bachelor.

Permalink to full story.

Right, Girl, suck all the fun out of it...

Cathryn Michon, writing in iVillage, speaks of "girl crushes" and how they lead, ideally, to mellow friendship and not hot girl on girl action.

She's So Fine: The Anatomy of a Girl Crush Annotated

A recent New York Times article postulates that one thing men and women have in common is that we both get crushes on women. This interests me greatly because I just went through a bad "girl breakup" that was the result of a "girl crush."

If you ever try to discuss the topic of girl crushes with a man, his eyes instantly glaze over and you automatically know it's because he is hearing the "do-wacka-wacka" of cheesy porn music in his head. Sometimes you have to clap your hands together really loudly right in front of his face just to pull him out of his catatonic state.

No, it's not that kind of "girl-on-girl action." A girl crush is where you meet a woman whose sense of style or brilliant achievements or personal charisma makes you kind of adore and worship her.

She then goes on to explain very clearly why developing a relationship that is based on an unexamined mutual attraction can lead to bad relationships, based on unspoken commonalities that can - and perhaps should - change.

Amen, sister, amen.

Our subconscious minds are rather good at grabbing our groins as a means to getting us to make changes we should make or proceed in directions we should go. But, alas, our subconscious is no smarter on it's own than it is in concert with our conscious minds, and it certainly isn't verbal. It pays to learn to take those lubricious urges very seriously - and think about what the old hind-brain might be trying to say; if not before, certainly afterward.

And I would like to point out that while hot lesbian sex might not have changed anything in the long or short run you would at least have had *hot* *lesbian* *sex*. I'm not so much advocating it as I am gently poking fun at the author's need to immediately rule out anyone thinking she had had *hot* *lesbian* *sex* with one of her crushes. Gee, all of the unpleasant hormonal whipsawing and no payoff? Does sex somehow devalue the basis for the crush? It seems like a poor reason to suffer a needless bout of Green Disease.

To the extent that this apparent dynamic reflects the absurd tragicomedy of the male "Madonna/Whore" double bind, it's, well, I suppose I expect more of women as intuitive social beings. The whole "I wouldn't be caught dead in a serious relationship with anyone slutty enough to want to have sex with me" is, from any perspective or sexual orientation, evidence of a serious issue of self worth - and projection.

But on the other paw, I've often observed that Lesbianism is not as significantly a gender preference as it is a culture with a distinct approach to and understanding of sexuality. Yes, the overwhelming gender preference of Lesbians tends to obscure that, but once you have known a few, you start to realize that an interest in bumping fuzzies is truly the least significant difference. Further, there are many women who have a sexual preference for women who work within a much more classically male/male or male/female dynamic. It's these exceptions that illuminated the rule for me.

I encourage everyone - of all sexual orientations and preferences, to try it out at least as a thought-experiment. Males do have to make some adaptations. For instance, falling asleep immediately is just rude and wrong. If it's unavoidable, request that your partner awaken you in fifteen minutes so you can snuggle and process.

Yes, this is referring to the classic joke about lesbian sex - an hour of sex followed by three hours discussing the meaning and implications. The joke implies that to be a silly female thing, but it can save you from making either more or less of what happened than you should. That doesn't seem inconsequential to me.

Sex is the expression of the sexuality, urges, needs , comfort and security drives of the persons within a relationship. How could that NOT be worth talking about, if you value that relationship beyond the moment?

I think one of the most important things I have learned from the lesbians I've known over the years is that there is no hard "line" between affection, snuggling, fooling around, physical play and sex.

For most that I've known, it's part of a whole while for most men I've known, gay and straight, it's distinctly separable and most seem to prefer it that way. Personally, I can't imagine wanting that, much less settling for it. While I know that mileage does vary dramatically, I still see the vast majority of people settling for less than they want and need for the sake of a mistaken propriety, or worse yet, seeking out in private what they deny to themselves and others in public.

This has led to so much conflict, death and madness in our culture that it's time that we suck it up and decide to be honest about these things, at least with ourselves. Face it, girls. While a "pash" is not the same thing as the sort of crush a boy has on a girl, it's not entirely asexual either. There is a physical component. There are physiological effects that could and often do lead to a walk on the wild side. It's common enough that in some cultures and contexts, it's considered to be a normal teenage phase of sexual development.

So factor that in. Admit it to yourself. Then do, or do not as seems best, informed by your ethics, your morals and common sense. Remember that whether or not you admit it, our sexual urges and our personal sexualities are part of the whole package that makes another person attractive or unattractive to us, whether or not they are of a gender we will choose to have sex with. Permalink to full story.

It must have been a nipply day!

Permalink to full story.

On the matter of boobs, and what sort deserves more consideration.

I found this lingering on the spike. Very old news, and yet, likely to erupt again at any moment, because this is an issue that cannot, will not and should not go away.

Breast isn't best: readers tell US parenting magazine - Yahoo! News:

"The picture in Babytalk was aimed at illustrating the controversy surrounding breastfeeding in the United States, where a national survey by the American Dietetic Association found that 57 percent of those polled are opposed to women breastfeeding in public and 72 percent think it is inappropriate to show a woman breastfeeding on television programs.

Babytalk executive editor Lisa Moran said though most of those who responded to the poll about the cover photo gave the magazine a thumbs up, she was surprised that some 25 percent expressed outrage.

'There is a real puritanical streak in America,' Moran told AFP. 'You see celebrities practically baring their breasts all the time and no one seems to mind in this sort of sexual context.

'But in this very natural context of feeding your child, a lot of Americans are very uncomfortable with it.'"

It seems to me that this is such an wholesome and innocent image that taking offense at it amounts to a genuine perversion; a degree of fetishism and outright filthy-mindedness that it needs far more, widespread and consistent mockery.

The idea that a breast is always sexual and never just there is an astonishingly juvenile view. Sometimes breasts are sexy. Sometimes they are nurturing. And sometimes, I've been told, they get in the way. That's a more grown-up way of looking at boobs. Context matters. And the fact that a woman's breast is partially exposed when a baby is attached should not bother you. Why? Because babies are good things, and don't deserve having their feeding disrupted by their prudery, or stuffed under a hot blanket so that you are "spared" the vision of a nipple being used as nature intended.

When a breast is displayed partially covered by a scrap of fabric that manages to be just barely adequate in a legal sense, there is little outcry, even in the same context where people would be upset at this. Lo, the baby covers more than many bikini tops.

I've been long convinced that cultural taboos involving the human body create the very pervesions they are supposedly intended to prevent. While they may serve to spare the delecate sensiblities of a few prudes here and there, I question the legitamacy of that demand, or why rigid, shame based conentions that have the effect of warping our natural sexual behavior into paths that are often compulsive and distructive. It seems to me that a modicum of courtesy would be a far better way of going about not scaring the horse-faced. Permalink to full story.