This video fucking ripped. So many links to crawl.

see: https://garfieldkermit.wordpress.com/2026/04/27/why-arent-games-sexualising-men-sources/

Conservative SCOTUS block has taken a huge L.

I am not convinced that there is an epidemic of low libido. Instead, women are exhausted, and invisible labor and a pay gap make 10 pm sex feel like another chore. There is a shortage of skilled partners, a century of missing anatomy, and a menu that was never designed for female biology. And there is definitely a culture that maligns female pleasure and forces you to swim upstream to get what you want and need.

Patriarchy looms over all things, like a haunting shadow. Biology and sexual wellness are no exception.

I am not convinced that there is an epidemic of low libido. Instead, women are exhausted, and invisible labor and a pay gap make 10 pm sex feel like another chore. There is a shortage of skilled partners, a century of missing anatomy, and a menu that was never designed for female biology. And there is definitely a culture that maligns female pleasure and forces you to swim upstream to get what you want and need.

Patriarchy looms over all things, like a haunting shadow. Biology and sexual wellness are no exception.

Boobs, breasts, baps, jugs, tits…what’s the fascination? And why on earth are they SO politicised?

Really great series on Nebula I’ve been following.

Some exceptions and why they matter

Excellent stuff.

In the second episode of the series, I explore the debate around whether our love of boobs is nature or nurture. I also dive into the history of boob attraction. If you’ve been asking out to the universe “WHAT KIND OF BOOBIES WERE TRENDY IN THE 1800s?!” - you’ll finally get an answer.

I finally found a nice piece explaining it. And yes, it’s entirely fucking arbitrary. I hate social constructions!!!1!!11! The author make a good point in that separating breasts from their utility, keeping them out of sight,perpetuates their sexualaizatization. Perhaps my idea of having everyone cover up isn’t as productive as I thought. A lot of nice links in the description, too.

In the first episode of the series, I discuss the conservative media’s fixation on American Actress Sydney Sweeney. More so: her breasts. Her body has become a prime talking point for the culture wars. Right wing cultural commentator Richard Hanania and others claim that her breasts signify “the death of wokeness”. Let’s explore that today.

When Amia Srinivasan published The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century in 2021, it sparked widespread debate about the politics of desire, consent, and sexual justice.

In this episode of The Exchange, the Oxford academic joins Tanjil Rashid to discuss how philosophy can illuminate some of the most contentious questions in contemporary culture: from incels and pornography to whether our desires are shaped by society.

In this chapter, we review an impressive body of research conducted during the past 20 years on sexual objectification, self-objectification, and their attendant consequences. We start with a description of how sexual objectification comes to be internalized as self-objectification in many girls and women. We then highlight exemplary research on the facets of sexual objectification and the deficits incurred by self-objectification. We review theories to explain the functions of sexual and self-objectification as a psychic defense against mortality concerns, as a bolster for justification of the patriarchal system, and as a vehicle for oppression by the powerful. Finally, we spotlight exciting directions in which the study of sexual objectification and self-objectification is forging ahead.

see: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tomi-Ann-Roberts/publication/365409232_Objectification_Theory_Continuing_Contributions_to_Feminist_Psychology/

The problem with dating apps is that they are gay technology being wildly misappropriated by heterosexuals.

What a dumb post LOL.

Where does one go to spend a Sunday afternoon with leather-clad, latex-wrapped, and otherwise-kinky folks in Perth? Why, at West Oz Leather’s social event West Connect, of course!

This is such an incredible space that I feel deeply grateful to get to exist in. Thank you to the committee and volunteers for giving me something to look forward to every single month! And thank you to everyone who made a cameo in this comic!

There will always be moments where I feel like I can’t relate to anyone, like I don’t belong anywhere. But now, I have days like these I can look forward to again.

Paper abortion, also known as a financial abortion, male abortion or a statutory abortion,[1] is the proposed ability of the biological father, before the birth of the child, to opt out of any rights, privileges, and responsibilities toward the child, including financial support. By this means, before a child is born, a man would be able to absolve himself of both the privileges and demands of fatherhood.

Interesting.

Death to amatonormativity!

see: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/rHBdcHGLJ7KvLJQPk/the-logical-fallacy-of-generalization-from-fictional

What a good series.

I’ll note, as an aside, that the general social disfavoring of “no” that conversational analysis, among other disciplines, identifies is a lot like the way safewords are treated. Many bottoms, particularly subs and particularly women feel a lot of pressure not to safeword: as if it’s a rejection, as if it’s a disappointment, as if it’s selfish.

People are being [hurt], and it’s not me and it’s not my spouse. But I care that it happens. I could shut my door and play the way I like and ignore all that, but that’s what entitled privileged douches do with their privilege when they don’t care about justice. That’s “I got mine, Jack.” That’s not the right thing to do. I try to tell my kids to do the right thing, even if it’s hard, so I need to expect that of myself or I’m not much of an example.

What a good series.

I’ll note, as an aside, that the general social disfavoring of “no” that conversational analysis, among other disciplines, identifies is a lot like the way safewords are treated. Many bottoms, particularly subs and particularly women feel a lot of pressure not to safeword: as if it’s a rejection, as if it’s a disappointment, as if it’s selfish.

People are being [hurt], and it’s not me and it’s not my spouse. But I care that it happens. I could shut my door and play the way I like and ignore all that, but that’s what entitled privileged douches do with their privilege when they don’t care about justice. That’s “I got mine, Jack.” That’s not the right thing to do. I try to tell my kids to do the right thing, even if it’s hard, so I need to expect that of myself or I’m not much of an example.

If tops know that people feel free to just say that a top violated boundaries, tops might be a bit more worried about how they conduct themselves, they might be a little more stressed, they might have to trust their partners more. But right now, bottoms have to trust their partners a ton. Checking reputations and safecalls and the community leaders don’t protect someone from having their limits violated in private, or even in public. Right now, all the weight of risk is borne by the bottoms. How the hell is that fair?

BDSM is morally acceptable because we’re not doing anything wrong, and to be morally acceptable, we have to circumscribe the boundaries of what we do at the point where it becomes wrong, not look for some metaethical cheat code like immutability.

Never underestimate the depth of human venality.

If we don’t stand for consent, then there is no difference between us and the serial killers and child molesters.

I’ve noticed a funny thing: “I don’t do drama” is, in my experience, a contrarian indicator. There is more drama around people who say they don’t do drama than those who don’t say it, IMO.

I love geek sex. I love the way we’re endlessly willing to rethink and improve and break stereotypes about sex. But we gotta stop buying into this crap. We’re geeks; we oughta be smarter than that.

Pretending you can just decide whether you’ll feel any emotions at all is a geek fallacy stemming from the idea that you should be able to optimize your own brain to not do anything unproductive or unintended.

via: https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/theres-a-war-on-part-5-wallowing-in-the-sl-op/

A sexy comic to do with climbing AND robots? Hot damn, thank you Sinew! Rest your sore limbs and enjoy todays very active recovery day.