The video looks like it was shot illicitly through a peephole, but it's actually a professionally produced "viral" video made for Reebok. ]]>
The video looks like it was shot illicitly through a peephole, but it's actually a professionally produced "viral" video made for Reebok. ]]>
Taryn told the crew her meltdown followed an incident in which her intestines were "torn open" while filming an anal scene: "There was lube but it was KY jelly, and if you know anything about KY, it burns...so we used spit."
Owwww! The moral of this story: use plenty of lube for anal sex, and saliva doesn't count.
There's plenty more of the Taryn Thomas interview summarized at that link. Your "read the whole thing" rating depends on how much you like Howard Stern's sense of humor.]]>
Trouble was, established porn shop Zero Tolerance would soon announce production of its own Official Jersey Shore Parody.com — and later claim it was unaware of Taryn It Up Entertainment's stake in the beach.
"I have all the evidence to prove that they lied to me," Thomas says. "They said that they Googled it, and they did not Google it, because my stuff came up. People are gonna copy other people's ideas, and that's what it is."
The other Jersey Shore porn parody was made by PopPorn, sort of a XXX comedy troupe headed by Spock Buckton and Brian Bangs, and released by Zero Tolerance. For the record, here's their version of the duelling Jersey Shore parodies (scroll down to comments).
We have nothing but love and respect for Taryn Thomas and her version of Jersey Shore. Here's how it went down - We were asked to do a Jersey Shore parody and we said yes because we thought it would be fun. We had no way of knowing that "they" created a domain name on Dec 15th - who are we - the domain police? And forgive us for not knowing that "they" announced their plans on twitter. I don't pay attention to anything on twitter except for my @replies.
This is fucking porno, we're not making Citizen Kane here. Please get over yourself and just except the fact that 2 parties decided to make similar movies at once, it happens ALL the time in the porno world - a world that takes advantage of trends and is very rarely original or creative.
For the sake of porn biz peace, we encourage everyone to watch them both. We don't want pornstars to start going all Biggie and Tupac on each other.
]]>
How many dimwits will click the "Buy Now!" graphic and wonder why it isn't working?]]>
First, therapist/author Marty Klein criticizes both the concept of "sex addiction" and the pop culture craze for "diagnosing" celebrities.
What I do know is that, after 30 years as a psychotherapist and sex therapist, I’ve never seen a sex addict. I’ve seen people who were obsessive-compulsive, bi-polar, depressed, anxious, or borderline. I’ve seen people who were selfish or unconsciously enraged; who lacked empathy, who hated their spouse, or who specifically didn’t want a divorce but were withering from the lack of touching.
And yes, I’ve seen men and women who were scathingly self-critical about their sexual choices, and kept right on making the same damn choices.
But calling any of them “sex addicts” deprives them of a proper diagnosis and psychologically profound treatment. It focuses on the surface symptom -- sexual behavior -- while ignoring possible deeper dynamics.
[...] It’s noteworthy that so many therapists and addictionologists are willing to diagnose Tiger as a sex addict without meeting him, as is a nation of lay people. If people without training can “diagnose” the guy, and professionals who haven’t met him can diagnose the guy, exactly how precise can this “diagnosis” be? Who needs school? Who needs a clinical interview?
Most media discussions of Tiger Woods slide between moral judgments, vicarious thrills and pseudopsychobabble. The infotainment professionals are very good at maximizing their audience, but we shouldn't confuse this incoherent stew with actual insight.
At the Daily Beast, T. Byram Karasu stirs things up with "Every Man Is a Sex Addict", which criticizes the "sexual addiction" pop diagnosis as "medicalizing normal human behavior".
Sex addiction is simply a new name for the old evolutionary concept -- the innate urge to impregnate as many females as possible. In this sense, every man is a sex addict or was one at some point in his life.
Look at sex addiction as existing on a curve of normal behavior over a man’s lifespan: The addiction begins around the pubertal age, and peaks by his early 20s. It then plateaus until the 40s before descending along a downward curve in his 60s. It eventually fizzles out altogether, either because of age-related atrophy of the testicles or, more abruptly, by a prostate operation.
If Karasu wanted to start an argument, he succeeded. The blogosphere is already rife with denunciations. Personally I think he's onto something. There's something creepy and totalitarian about treating powerful sexual desire as a pathology or addiction that needs to be cured.
In the past, female sexuality was frequently medicalized this way as "hysteria" or "nymphomania" or "frigidity" or whatever. We now recognize these as phony diagnoses that really expressed repressive cultural biases. Likewise, homosexuality used to be commonly considered a psychological disorder; nowadays that "diagnosis" is limited to a minority of cultural conservative cranks. The concept of "sexual addiction" belongs to this long tradition of turning contemporary cultural norms into pseudo-medical distinctions between "sick" and "normal" sexuality.
Of course, there's still the moral dimension of being honest with your partner(s). Tiger Woods failed on that account. But that's very different from calling his desire to sleep with many different women an "addiction" or mental illness for which he needs "treatment".
Karasu ends by suggesting that women who marry young men "view the addiction as a time-limited condition, accept the man for who he is, and wait until his desires extinguish". Oh boy, there's another argument starter. This model for marriage is not culturally accepted in modern America, whether among liberals or conservatives, though it's probably more common than we acknowledge. I agree with Karasu, it should be more accepted.]]>
The developer included a screen capture of the "Explicit" category option. Some other blogs posted screen captures as well. But within a few hours, the "Explicit" category disappeared.
This would be a sensible course of action by Apple, far more sensible than deleting 6000 apps without warning.
And just to be clear, the "explicit" and "overtly sexual" apps that Apple purged from the App Store were actually pretty tame, mostly cheesecake shots of women in bikinis.]]>
According to the local TV news story embedded at HustlerWorld, the "crossdressing robber" or "crossdressing bandit" is now in custody. The news segment includes surveillance photos of the guy. He's not exactly the most glamorous drag queen on TV, more Mrs. Doubtfire than RuPaul. Make a little effort next time.]]>
Many developers who built small businesses around creating and selling erotic apps are angry about getting ousted without warning. The co-president of On The Go Girls, which had all fifty of its iPhone apps deleted, complained, “I’m shocked. We’re showing stuff that’s racier than the Disney Channel, but not by much. ... It’s very hard to go from making a good living to zero. This goes farther than sexy content. For developers, how do you know you aren’t going to invest thousands into a business only to find out one day you’ve been cut off?”
The developer behind banned app Wobble summarizes the new App Store guidelines at his blog after talking to an Apple rep.
And many Apple partisans are outraged at the selective purge, which left equally racy bikini babe apps from print media brands Sports Illustrated, FHM and Playboy available. A Macworld columnist writes, "Ambiguous, moving-target policies are one thing (and, even after a year and a half, Apple still needs to fix them). But instantly destroying the income of independent developers—no matter how useless or degrading you feel their apps may be—while allowing major publishers to peddle the same product is an entirely different thing." He's got a point.]]>
Tiger Woods is a very wealthy, successful man in his early 30s who had sex with fifteen different women over a span of several years. Is this really a sign of mental illness or moral degeneracy? Something for which he requires psychological treatment and public self-debasement? It all sounds perfectly normal to my mind. Many men his age have comparable sex lives, and many more would like to.
This is not to defend how he managed his affairs. Tiger was not an ethical slut. But neither is he an "addict", he doesn't need to be "cured", and he doesn't owe an apology to anyone who doesn't know him personally.
Let's all just enjoy a titillating titter or two at Tiger's expense, let him get back to being the greatest golfer of all time, and let him live his private life the way he sees fit.
In that spirit: Tiger Woods Announces Return To Sex.
PONTE VEDRA BEACH, FL—In an announcement highly anticipated by sex fans around the world, Tiger Woods told a small gathering of reporters, family, and lovers Friday that the most dominant fornicator on the planet would soon return to sex.
"Not being able to get out there and have sex has really been tough on me," Woods said. "I've missed it. I love fucking with all my heart."
Woods said that during his brief time away from sex, he couldn't stop thinking about one day resuming his daily regimen of sexual intercourse with random women who look vaguely like his wife, only skankier.
Somehow The Onion manages to make even the most obvious gags hilarious.]]>
Outrageous overkill? Blatantly unconstitutional? Perhaps, but the Missouri state senate approved the bill by a vote of 29-2. Now it goes to the state house.]]>
This prized domain was originally registered in 1994 by entrepreneur Gary Kremen (who also registered domains jobs.com, autos.com and housing.com in the early days; founded Match.com in 1995; and currently runs a home solar energy startup). A conman stole the domain in 1996 by sending a forged domain transfer notice to Network Solutions, sparking a long legal battle. Kremen eventually got the domain back, then sold it in 2006.
So how much will Sex.com sell for this time around? Revenues in the online sex business have dropped sharply in the last four years, so my guess would be $3-5 million.]]>
Last week's Nightline seven-minute segment covering the 2010 Adult Entertainment Expo was a welcome exception. "Why would you ever pay for porn?" Good question. The report covers the industry's drastic revenue decline due to internet piracy and free tube sites, then looks at how some big companies are trying to compete with free.
My favorite part: when pornstar Lisa Ann, famous for her XXX impersonation of Sarah Palin, urges consumers to show more "integrity".]]>
The TechCrunch blogger tested the ban by trying to download several erotic apps. “Exotic Positions” and “Sexy Women” returned error messages saying the apps were no longer available, while “Beautiful Boobs”, “Sexy Girls Uncovered” and “Sex Strip” remained available. Maybe there's some subtle distinction between the boobs in question, or maybe Apple just hasn't finished the purge.]]>
Robert Pattinson tells the interviewer that he didn't enjoy this photo shoot, because "I really hate vaginas. I'm allergic to vagina."
It's not clear if this is (1) a coy way of saying that he's gay, which is always rumored about the hot teen idol of the moment anyway, (2) a random absurd quip, because he's sick of answering the same stupid questions over and over, or (3) literally true, a brave admission that he suffers from a rare and tragic malady.
We also learn from the hipster puff piece that Robert Pattinson is "hungry, curious, forever reaching intellectually". Just not hungry for vagina.]]>
For those who don't know your supermodels cold, the octet consists of Kate Moss, Naomi Campbell, Amber Valletta, Lara Stone, Natalia Vodianova, Daria Werbowy, Jeneil Williams and Kristen McMenamy.
Editor-in-chief Katie Grand explained to Vogue, "For this issue of LOVE, we took eight women who are generally acknowledged as the most beautiful in the world, got them to show off their bodies -- widely regarded as the most perfect in the world -- and photographed them all in exactly the same position for the cover."
"We did this to show how much they differed physically from one another, which is why we also printed their measurements. The point is that 'perfection' is not fixed, timeless or transcendent. It varies, as the measurements of our cover girls show."
To my eye, their bodies range from tall and skinny to taller and skinnier, but we'll give them points for lip service.]]>