![]() |
|
erotica ![]() ![]() lifestyles ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() features ![]() ![]() ![]() eros bits ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() events ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() eros photo classified ads about eros ezine daily cartoon select different zine:
![]()
|
Highlights from the world of sex. If you don't know about the Kinsey Institute, I strongly suggest taking a night course on human sexuality at your local university or community college. First of all, sometimes the teachers are hot. Secondly, you'll learn the history of this influential, controversial foundation based out of Indiana University. Anyway, Kinsey has just released findings from its latest survey on the subject of female sexuality. Not only do these finding reveal that women, and couples in general, are having less sex than they did in the 1950s (!), but also it deals with controversial viewpoints on the subject of female sexual dysfunction (dealt with here recently). ![]() Also, Kinsey states that, contrary to a 1999 study that found 43 percent of women were suffering from sexual dysfunction, only about a quarter of women surveyed complained of sexual dissatisfaction in their lives. This might be partly due to a male bias in the study (something Kinsey has been accused of in the past), where satisfaction was measured in the goal-oriented world of orgasm, which while obviously important to the female experience, maybe shouldn't be taken out of context with the larger issues of emotional well-being and partner satisfaction. While this view might well be as controversial as the previous finding, academicians and researchers have long been suspect of the 1999 University of Chicago survey. Kinsey's survey was a random telephone survey of 853 women, ages 20 to 65, who had been in a heterosexual relationship for at least six months. While being far from absolutely conclusive, Kinsey officials say the study gives a good balance to its 1999 counterpart, even though their concentration on women in longer term relationship might have skewed the results a bit in terms of women with psychological problems centered around sex (the assumption being that these women are less likely to sustain relationships). Utah porn czar position axed With budget deficits at every level of government, there's really not much to celebrate about the American economy at the moment. However, the Lord works in mysterious ways, and in His infinite wisdom and justice He has sought fit use Utah's fiscal shortfall to smite a blow for smut, using his Holy Sword (uhhh …) to sack the nation's first (and hopefully last) porn czar in that state. ![]() Lastly, should it surprise you that this news makes me giddy. Frankly, no. Not only was this position a complete waste of time (thank our Holy Lord and Savior that these bumpkins didn't have the money for a fuckin' caffeine czar), but it aimed to stamp out porn. And I like porn. And you do, too. Burn the witch! Ooops, got all King Arthur on ya. Utah officials maintain that godless purveyors of pornography shouldn't regard this as a victory, heavens no. It's just that when the shit hits the fan and your state doesn't have enough money to fix potholes, let alone harass video stores carrying the latest Shane's World MXMVIII, it becomes painfully obvious that the silly positions go first. And surely Houston's dismissal is a sign that, deep down, even Utah statesmen know this was a silly position. I doubt that whoever's in charge of the department of corrections in Mormon country is sweating about his job, no matter how far in the hole the state budget is. So bite me, Utah, and good riddance, Paula Houston. I'll be the judge of what's a victory and what's not. Yay porn!
|
![]() ![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |