This article in Men’s Health lists the smuttiest cities:
Most porn films may be shot in the L.A. area, but their biggest audience is in Orlando. We know what you’re thinking: How can the home of G-rated theme parks be skin-flick central? It seems that while tourists line up at a kid-friendly fantasy world, the locals prefer one in which Snow White and the dwarfs whistle while they… well, you know.
We peered through a statistical peephole to tabulate the following criteria: the number of DVDs purchased, rented, or streamed (AdultDVDEmpire.com); adult entertainment stores per city (StorErotica.net); rate of porn searches (Google Insights); and, for fans of soft-core, percentage of Cinemax-subscribing households (SimplyMap). Not only were Orlando folks the randiest residents, but Florida was also the most salacious state.
Love to Look
1. Orlando, FL
2. Las Vegas, NV
3. Wilmington, DE
4. Raleigh, NC
5. Charlotte, NC
6. Minneapolis, MN
7. Atlanta, GA
8. Tampa, FL
9. Anchorage, AK
10. Austin, TX
11. Boise, ID
12. Miami, FL
13. Houston, TX
14. Columbia, SC
15. Dallas, TX
16. Portland, OR
17. San Diego, CA
18. Cleveland, OH
19. Sacramento, CA
20. Baltimore, MD
21. Providence, RI
22. Durham, NC
23. San Francisco, CA
24. Wichita, KS
25. Columbus, OH
26. Plano, TX
27. Manchester, NH
28. Jersey City, NJ
29. St. Paul, MN
30. Madison, WI
31. Cheyenne, WY
32. Denver, CO
33. Chicago, IL
34. Philadelphia, PA
35. Rochester, NY
36. Tucson, AZ
37. Reno, NV
38. Riverside, CA
39. Bakersfield, CA
40. New Orleans, LA
41. Omaha, NE
42. Seattle, WA
43. Milwaukee, WI
44. Greensboro, NC
45. Fort Worth, TX
46. Oklahoma City, OK
47. Pittsburgh, PA
48. Colorado Springs, CO
49. Nashville, TN
50. Phoenix, AZ
51. Honolulu, HI
52. Jacksonville, FL
53. Anaheim, CA
54. Tulsa, OK
55. Aurora, CO
56. Lexington, KY
57. Bridgeport, CT
58. Buffalo, NY
59. Portland, ME
60. St. Petersburg, FL
61. San Jose, CA
62. Billings, MT
63. Virginia Beach, VA
64. Albuquerque, NM
65. St. Louis, MO
66. Kansas City, MO
67. Fresno, CA
68. Sioux Falls, SD
69. Los Angeles, CA
70. Louisville, KY
71. Salt Lake City, UT
72. Stockton, CA
73. San Antonio, TX
74. Little Rock, AR
75. Memphis, TN
76. New York, NY
77. Corpus Christi, TX
78. Indianapolis, IN
79. Oakland, CA
80. Washington, DC
81. Cincinnati, OH
82. Birmingham, AL
83. Boston, MA
84. Burlington, VT
85. Des Moines, IA
86. Detroit, MI
87. Fort Wayne, IN
88. Chesapeake, VA
89. Newark, NJ
90. El Paso, TX
Avert Their Eyes
91. Norfolk, VA
92. Fargo, ND
93. Lincoln, NE
94. Toledo, OH
95. Laredo, TX
96. Lubbock, TX
97. Charleston, WV
98. Winston-Salem, NC
99. Baton Rouge, LA
100. Jackson, MS
Thanks to high-speed Internet, a pornucopia of X-rated flicks is a few clicks away—unless your city is listed here with an asterisk. These places fall into Adult DVD Empire’s no-stream category, a restriction companies put in place to avoid being charged with violating community standards. But these standards were meant for mail-order porn, says obscenity law attorney Jeffrey J. Douglas, and shouldn’t apply online. Petition your politicians to stop the Net-nannying.
Kids’ peeking at Dad’s porn stash is so last century. In a U.K. survey, one in four boys (and one in five girls) reported viewing adult-only sites on their phones. Shield your child’s eyes with the Mobicip Safe Browser app (mobicip.com, $5, Android or iOS). It uses age-based filtering to block sites and is recommended by the Parents’ Choice Foundation.
I came across this article on sex and relationships with simulated humans:
It’s hard to think of a more attention-grabbing title than “Robots, Men, and Sex Tourism”—especially in the academic world.
Written by researchers from New Zealand’s University of Wellington and published recently in the journal Futures, the paper predicts that in the decades to come, humans will patronize robot-staffed brothels, freeing them from the guilt associated with visiting a flesh-and-blood prostitute. Perhaps predictably, it sparked a lively conversation about whether the sex industry could be automated—and not a little squeamishness about the whole idea of robot-human relations.
That at least some of us will be having sexual intercourse with robots in the future should be obvious by now. Somebody out there will make love to just about any consumer good that enters the home (and if that’s not the first rule of product design, it should be).
But will our robot-human relations be relegated to the bedroom, or will love enter the equation, too? Is our society headed in a direction that will support this transition? Looking at current trends, I’d say that the answer is a resounding yes.
For most, contemplating the prospect of robot sex is immediately distasteful. The mind conjures up alchemists’ combinations of rubber and silicone and, I don’t know, hair follicles. It is hard to dismiss that slack-jawed, shark-eyed stare of love dolls, their pale arms covered by gummy, petroleum-product skin.
But those aren’t the siren love robots of the future. Realistic skin, the ability to make eye contact, faux breathing (to avoid that “walking human corpse” feel), convincing conversational skills, dexterous manipulation of objects, and the ability to not walk through sliding glass doors—we can assume that these things will be attainable within the next few decades. Consider the PR2 “personal” robot from Willow Garage; with an open-source brain located in a Google cloud, this machine can already navigate a home environment to fetch beers, load a dishwasher, and precisely fold laundry.
In 2007’s Love and Sex With Robots, Dr. David Levy claimed we humans—that’s men and women, so you’re not off the hook, ladies—will become smitten with new breeds of advanced humanoid robots due to arrive within the next half-century.
Many of our social interactions have been reduced to the barebones transfer of information via various online media: text messages, emails, shared videos and pictures, status updates, and, uh, pokes. We routinely create online profiles that distill our lives to a list of data points—much in the way that a role-playing game stat sheet boils down your complex and multi-faceted elvish archer to only his intelligence, dexterity, and charisma. For people who have been raised on text-based interactions, just speaking on the telephone can be high bandwidth to the point of anxiety.
The complicated, ambiguous milieu of human contact is being replaced with simple, scalable equations. We maintain thousands more friends than any human being in history, but at the cost of complexity and depth. Every minute spent online is a minute of face-to-face time lost. For better or worse, new modes of interaction are steadily eroding the more “traditional” forms of interaction familiar to older generations. New streamlined interactions between human beings may open the door for machines to join us as social peers and not just sex objects.
Another side effect of these new modes of interaction is simply the ability to turn them off. Don’t like what someone wrote? Don’t respond. Tired of somebody? Stop following them. Push the ignore button. Delete, ban, or go invisible. Instant gratification has infiltrated our interpersonal relationships, and in our online interactions, we each have the ultimate power to silence one another.
It’s harder to get away with that kind of behavior in face-to-face interactions with real human beings. However, a robot could easily bring those online social mores into the real world by allowing human users to ignore, ban, or even delete them.
Looking ahead, future generations may learn their social skills from robots in the first place. The cute yellow Keepon robot from Carnegie Mellon University has shown the ability to facilitate social interactions with autistic children. Morphy at the University of Washington happily teaches gestures to children by demonstration. With infinite patience and zero judgment, new classes of social robot are in development to offer the ultimate low-risk social tutor to human beings. If you’re raised (at least in part) by a machine, falling in love with one might not seem so bizarre.
In the end, perhaps it will be the true romantics, not the nerds, who choose to flee from a world of impersonal, digitized relationships and into the arms of simulacrums with manners imported from simpler times.
Thank everyone for taking the time to read , all I ever really cared about was the safety of submissives and slave..
It has come to my attention that my blogs are no longer welcome here, so it is time to say good by.
Everyone take care and be safe.
I used to teach philosophy, and one of my specializations was ethics. I came across this article, which I bascially agree with, on incest:
In my time teaching students about making choices, especially moral ones, based on sound reasoning and evidence, we often range into areas many have not thoroughly considered. After all, everything deserves scrutiny if we are to be fairly sure an idea (or belief) is worth pursuing, defending and so on. If this idea is worth our support, it will pass tests of reasonable scrutiny; if it does not, it either means we must strengthen the idea by addressing its failings or discard it altogether. For example, there is no good reason to justify the oppression of gay people or women – though there are plenty of reasons people do. Thus because there are no good arguments to support oppressing gay people, the idea should be discarded and indeed opposed where it arises. In an effort to battle bad ideas, we should scrutinise (or at least be willing to scrutinise) every view, belief and idea we have.
Nothing is sacred in my class (indeed, we’ve debated the merits of sanctity itself). We engage with questions that focus on real-life matters, which tend to evoke knee-jerk reactions of dismissal and/or disgust.
With this in mind, my students asked whether incest or necrophilia is wrong. Since in many countries, both of these are automatically crimes, I think it’s important to consider what arguments there are for considering these as automatically wrong. However, just because something is right or wrong does not mean that the law follows suit. Something can be legal and be wrong by a moral standard, and vice versa. Here we are mainly considering the morality of these two supposedly taboo types of sexual conduct. Are they, by definition, wrong?
In Britain recently, a young lady was ‘caught’ having sex with her brother. Both siblings have blamed the other, citing alcohol, desperation and so, on as motivations. This is not of concern. What is of concern is that “the pair were convicted of committing incest under section 1(1) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995”. The brother is 21, while his sister is 18. Now, according to the law, they should be convicted.
However, laws are not perfect. What should matter to us, firstly, is whether they’ve done something wrong.
Often when people hear incest, they assume rape or paedophilia, too. But here it’s clear that neither rape nor paedophilia are the problem in the recent case, since both siblings are adults and both consented – in the same way any other drunken couple implicitly consent, since neither partner was forced into it.
Assume they were not brother and sister; is the sex act wrong? Given the implicit consent and their ages, it’s not clear that this would be any different than other sexual engagements where, after the fact, one or both (or all three) regret the act. However, neither one feels the other was violated in the sense of calling it rape. So that’s not the issue.
Notice, though, that even if one of these two was violated – whether because s/he was too young or raped – then it would be the violation through rape or paedophilia that made it wrong, not the fact that they’re brother and sister.
So, we’re clear that what makes this wrong is solely the fact that it’s incest – that is, the fact that they’re brother and sister. But why does this make it wrong?
This seems entirely based on mere repulsion. To try articulate why incest should be viewed as inherently wrong is difficult and there’s no clear argument. Here are a few arguments that my students and others have offered.
Firstly, the old, tired argument that “It’s not natural”. This argument must, like cancers and earthquakes, disappear from our planet. Cancers and earthquakes, by the way, are also natural. The philosopher Julian Baggini has correctly said that something being natural tells us no more about its moral property than if you said something was red. Good and bad things are natural, so not everything that is natural is good (or bad). (Considering that humans are part of the natural world, I see no reason for the distinction in most instances anyway. ‘Natural’ is not part of my vocabulary, since it seems largely useless.)
Secondly, people claim that incest creates ‘deformed’ children. This is not entirely true. There is a greater risk of various handicaps, true, due to a closer sharing of genetics. But there is a danger in every form of child creation that the child might be handicapped. There might be a difference in degree of risk in incestuous sex acts but certainly not in kind. And, similarly, if we continued with this logic, it seems that any person who has an increased risk of having children with disabilities ought not to reproduce (or should be condemned). The fact that we don’t condemn or restrict people with a verified increased risk of producing disabled children indicates that even this reason isn’t solid.
So, this view doesn’t work either. Furthermore, this assumes sex acts are solely for having children, whereas this is nonsense, since we have effective contraceptives and other measures to prevent pregnancy.
Thirdly, and oddly, people exclaim it’s “just” repugnant. We will examine this more closer later. Nonetheless, why should the sexual activities of two consenting adults concern us? This is the same question we can ask those who are ‘against’ homosexuality (which is like being against having blue eyes). It is none of our business what two consenting adults wish to do (as long as no one else is harmed/involved without consent).
Repugnance helped many things we now consider wrong to continue in the past, such racial and sexual inequality. We can’t rely on repugnance to justify our social policies, since our repugnance is simply that: our own. Besides which, people are repulsed by different things – and we cannot leave it up to the whims of our emotions to implement policies and laws which could, unnecessarily, cause suffering to other people, as is the case with gay people, women, and indeed the current brother-and-sister couple.
So these arguments fail. But if these arguments are sound, then this has a further implication.
What makes the case unfortunate is the young lady in question has been attacked and threatened by members of the public. Because of her ‘disgusting’ acts, she has been forced to flee her home. This seems to me unjustified. Violence is almost never the right response. Furthermore, as the arguments above have indicated, it’s not entirely clear what makes incest wrong when we are dealing with consenting adults. If we agree that consenting adults are allowed to have sex, then what makes these two people different, besides sharing parents? Why should sharing genetics make it a crime – or rather, something so monstrous that this young lady deserves to be treated like a diseased monster?
In considering this case, we are not encouraging incest, nor do we have to say we ‘like’ it. We don’t even have to say it is good or right. However, incestuous acts certainly need not be worth condemning a young lady over, nor does she deserve to be treated like someone requiring therapy. There is little justification for thinking she’s done something wrong.
What’s occurring here is inflating outrage – I don’t think there is such a thing as “moral” outrage – and personal disgust at an act, which has not harmed anybody else, to the point of having a lady’s life threatened for no good reason. Whatever the political situation, if we respect an adult’s right to engage freely in sexual acts with other consenting adults, it’s not clear why we draw a line based on genetics.
self-described “plus sized” college student who was told she was “obviously pregnant” and “not pretty enough” to dance on a platform in a bar in Iowa is claiming she was discriminated against by the bar’s bouncers.
Jordan Ramos, a 21-year-old University of Iowa student said she went to Union Bar in Iowa City, Iowa with her friends on March 3. She said she tried to get onto a platform where several of her friends were dancing, but was stopped by the bouncer, who said they were at capacity.
Ramos said she waited until a few girls left, and again tried to go up. She was stopped again, which she said prompted her to ask, “What is the difference between the other girls up there and myself?”
“There was only one difference: I am a plus-sized individual. The bouncer said ‘Look, you will never get up on this platform. Go back to the dance floor where you belong,’” Ramos told ABC News.
Ramos said a friend of hers tried to talk to the manager, but he refused to talk to her. The manager told them to leave, Ramos said. She sent the manager an email, which she says was never answered.
A social work professor at the University of Iowa told Ramos to return to the bar.
“She told my friends and I to go back and see if the same thing happens and to try to get them to say aloud ‘I am not allowing you up because of your size,’” Ramos said.
On April 14, Ramos returned to the Union Bar with a group of friends. Ramos’ friends, who she said are all thin, were able to get up on the platform easily. But Ramos was blocked from entering, she said.
Ramos asked the bouncer repeatedly why she could not dance on the platform.
“He said, ‘You’re not pretty enough and you’re pregnant.’ I said, ‘I can tell you with 100 percent certainty that I am not pregnant.’ He then looked at my stomach and said, ‘You obviously are.’ They knew I was not pregnant; it was there way of calling me fat without having to actually say it,” Ramos said.
Ramos approached the Human Rights Commission in Iowa City, but the organization told her they could not do an investigation because size discrimination is not illegal by law, Ramos said.
Union Bar did not immediately return a call for comment from ABC News.
I am on who is short and to the point, and I only have one question. What the fuck are you doing ? Now we all know when meeting someone one new, the whole meeting things is all about safety or I thought is was.
I know sometimes we just do not think, we fail to look at the whole picture, maybe a brain cramp, brain freeze, or it just never crossed your mind.
Today the internet is an awesome tool for meeting people. It has a lot of advantages and disadvantages. It makes it easier to be who we really are, we seem to open up a bit more, express our needs and wants more.
So you meet someone on a social site, can be very vanilla like Eharmony , ALT.com. You chat for a while you kinda like the one your chatting with. Now comes the big step . Lets email. NOT.
Now most do not think about this you have just giving me your email addy. You know what I have most of your life in my hands.
Okay now I have your Facebook , I now have your twitter, and if people still use myspace. I know where you work, what state, city, and or town.
I can put in your email address hit search, then images guess what ? Yup am I going to find nudes, pictures of your kids , family.
Please pick a email, do not use it for anything else, only people you wish to make contact with, never give out your last name.
This am a slave contacted me, yup I have her email. She lives maybe 30 minutes from me, really smoking hot mean wow..
So I am on facebook I copy her email paste and guess what. She is married, she does live where she say she does. Her hubby is in the army stationed in NY, has two kids, I know where she works because that was posted. I found her twitter, yup shes a hoe. I bet hubby does not know,
Am I going to see her ? Nope I have no interest in wrecking a family , let the bitch do it herself, let her take the fall, the blame. Fucking shame on her.
Ladies are you serious ? Come on , Think.