Bats for oral sex

Classify this one under "weird and interesting."

Researchers in China have discovered that humans are not the only species that commonly engage in oral sex. Certain primates do so occasionally, but it's apparently unusual enough in the animal kingdom that scientists were surprised when they observed it to be a common practice among bats.

Specifically, they discovered that female Chinese fruit bats lick the penis of male bats as they're having sex--and that this prolongs the sex, "with each second of licking adding roughly six extra seconds of copulation. The bats spent almost twice as long copulating when oral sex was involved than when not." If you substituted "humans" for "bats" in that last sentence, you'd say, well, duh. But who knew it would be the case for bats?

The scientists theorize that there's an evolutionary advantage to longer copulation--perhaps a greater likelihood of conception, for instance--or perhaps the female bat's saliva aids conception or reduces disease transmission. Or, maybe the bats just like gettin' it on.

I'm sure there's a study out there that demonstrates the same result in humans. Women who suck their partner's cock get fucked better than women who don't; and men who eat their partner's pussy find her more receptive to getting fucked. Duh. But don't take my word for it--feel free to test this in the lab, so to speak. Here's a bit of bat porn to get you in the mood.

Touch of Life is a breath of fresh air

Nudity is such a taboo in the United States, you'd think we were all walking around in invisible burkas. Nude or even topless beaches are scarce to non-existent; women feel the need to contort themselves into pretzels to conceal the fact that they're breastfeeding a child the way nature intended; and the whole country goes into paroxysms when they see a bit of nipple on national television. (It's no surprise that that incident was the most Tivo'd event in history. Shocking! Scandalous! Let's rewind and watch it again in slow motion!)

Now, a breath of fresh air: an ABC news affiliate in Washington D.C., WJLA, has broadcast on a non-cable channel an extended story about the importance of women conducting regular doctor and self breast exams. And the footage includes a real woman demonstrating a real self-exam, with no coy blurring or masking.

The web version of the story begins with a bright red screen saying "WARNING: THE FOLLOWING VIDEO CONTAINS ADULT MATERIAL. Viewer discretion advised" -- which is a bit disappointing, because it suggests that what you're about to see is red-band pornography rather than a story affecting roughly half of all humanity that might very well save thousands of lives. Still, it's a major milestone.

It will be interesting to watch the response. So far, WJLA's own online poll and comments summary are running six to one in favor of the broadcast. (Interestingly, the news story on ABC.com about the controversy actually censors its own image. How quaintly meta.) The most interesting thing to come out of this is that attention is being generated not about the nudity but about the underlying justification: are self-exams actually helpful in combatting breast cancer?

Some will say--with some justification--that showing a woman's breasts is in no small part a ploy to boost viewer ratings. "Dr. Nancy" on MSNBC does a good job of weighing the pros and cons in a rational, non-tabloid way. But the fact that it was broadcast at all is unprecedented for American television. If it opens the door to the idea that there are legitimate reasons for non-sexual, non-pixelated nudity on television, or to the idea that nudity isn't that big of a deal after all, then this is a good thing. It's a step in the right direction, toward the more relaxed attitudes demonstrated this year by British television, and the even more relaxed attitudes demonstrated daily on European TV. It's just bodies, people; we all have them; get over the embarassment already.

Could a PSA on testicular cancer be next?

News Flash: Hillary Swank is normal

Here's another entry in the category of "nude news of the absurd." Not that someone nude is absurd, but that the world is hyperventilating about someone else's perfectly normal nudity.

On the TODAY show, Hillary Swank revealed to Meredith Vieira that she sleeps in the nude. This, apparently, is enough to make some people break out in a cold sweat, despite the fact that most surveys show about 31% of men and 14% of women sleep in the nude nationwide. Yes, that's a minority, but with about 100 million adult women in this country, that's 14 million naked women every night, of which Ms. Swank is just one.

The other thing that has people tearing their hair out is Hillary's nonchalant admission that her boyfriend's 6-year-old son occassionally sees her naked. Of course, the news reports make this out to be something salacious, with Hillary "flashing her flesh" in front of a child, which is an absolutely absurd characterization of intrafamilial nudity. The LA Times says breathlessly, "Oh, we can see a tell-all book about being forced to see his daddy's girlfriend nude every morning in about 30 years."

This has revived the whole tired debate about whether it's acceptable for children to see their parents unclothed. Do a Google search on this and you're likely to find dozens of self-proclaimed experts writing advice columns saying santimoniously that it's not a good idea, making vague references to Freudian psychology, saying that children will be sexually stressed by seeing parents of the other sex in the nude, blah blah blah. It's difficult to find any actual research on this issue.

But guess what: what research has been done shows that it is a non-issue. Children are comfortable in whatever environment is normal for them. Children in nudist families, or simply those that are nonchalant about nudity, grow up -- guess what -- feeling nonchalant about nudity. Those that grow up in homes that are uptight about nudity grow up -- guess what -- feeling uptight about nudity. Which do you think is more healthy?

All a-twitter about nothing

This is hilarious: the blogsophere is up in arms today about a photograph posted by Meghan McCain, daughter of former presidential candidate John McCain, on her Twitter feed. The photo shows Meghan wearing -- wait for it! -- a tank top. *gasp!* And you can see her cleavage! OMG - the daughter of a Senator has boobs!

Come on, people. Only in America would this even be news. Most other civilized nations have nude or topless beaches dotting their coastlines. In many cultures a plunging neckline is practically mandatory. But ours is scandalized because someone stays home and reads a book in her bedroom in a tank top?

What a sorry state of affairs.

Don't sweat it, Meghan. After all, Jenna Bush is doing fine.

Not not NSFW

This is one of my new favorite blogs: NotNSFW, "The most suitable blog for work," which is exactly what you want to have showing up on your favorites list and browser history. Needless to say, this blog is not Not NSFW! It's rude, it's crude, it's sexy, and it's absolutely hilarious. Check out the crazy advertising campaigns featuring nude women in downtown streets. Check out the link to a map of the best places to make love in public. There's the most erotic minimalist photograph ever. And my absolute favorite: the multi-tasking young mother practicing her yoga:

Why Moms can't do yoga
by Hubzesailor

Bikini-less Baristas

The latest kerfuffle in Everett is "Bikini Baristas" who, it seems, are charging customers for a little extra with their coffee.

The controversy over coffee stands with bikini-clad servers is not new. Neighbors and full-time morality monitors have been complaining about scantily-clad servers for years now--as if they couldn't see just as much by strolling down to the local park or beach on a hot day during the summer. Bikinis are not illegal or even lewd under the definition of the law, case closed.

(It's an interesting question about why bikini baristas came into being in Washington, of all places. It's cold up here! It seems like the idea would develop in southern California or Florida. Maybe it's because we're all so caffeinated up here. Or maybe it's precisely the incongruity of it that made the idea catch fire. You'll see g-strings on main street in Miami Beach, no big deal. But how often, really, do you get to see a pretty young woman in a bikini in October in Seattle? Not so often.)

The issue of late is that some of the baristas are apparently offering more than just bikini views: flashing customers for tips, or letting them touch their breasts, or catching wadded up bills in their bikini bottoms. Good clean fun in the context of a private club, but on a busy street or in full view of non-compliant residences, perhaps a bit over the line. Now five or six women have been charged with misdemeanor "prostitution" for exchanging "sex acts" for money, and the city of Everett is looking at changing its ordinances to further criminalize such behavior.

I have decidedly mixed feelings about all this. On one hand I think it was awfully foolhardy of these girls to think they could flash their pussies, let customers fondle their breasts, and lick whipped cream off each other's bosoms in full view of the neighborhood without raising people's ire. Nudity is one thing, titilating behavior is entirely another. Heck, anything that merits a breathless expose on Fox News is bound to be bad news. On the other hand, the reaction is now likely to be overblown, as it often is in these cases, criminalizing even non-sexual nudity along with the erotic (though there are a few administrators who don't seem to be losing their heads). And don't the police have better things to do?

In my opinion, the solution should have been two-pronged: first, start selling coffee in strip clubs, where the waitresses could flash whatever they wanted with their service. And second, build your coffee shops in such a way that the neighbors can't get in on the show without getting in line themselves. Build a wooden fence around your piece of property--it wouldn't cost that much, would it? Tell the baristas to keep their hands to themselves, and to make the customers do the same. And then do away with the binikis entirely.

Wouldn't you stop for a naked latte?

Nude ballerinas in downtown Seattle

While in Seattle on business this past week, I happened on a public plaza at 3rd and Spring Street that featured two absolutely beautiful sculptures of nude ballerinas. Perched on pedestals ten feet above the ground, the two-foot tall metal sculptures faced the traffic and the surrounding highrise buildings, serenely balancing on one foot. The nonchalance of their nudity was a perfect example of "naked and simple beauty."



What made the statues even more remarkable was their detail. One statue, especially, which featured a young woman balancing on her right leg while holding her left leg, bent at the knee, in front of her. This pose exposes her vulva to the viewers below; and whereas so many artists will blur and smooth over the genital region as if it doesn't really exist, or as if they're too ashamed to portray it in accurate detail, this woman's vulva is remarkably detailed. Both the inner and outer lips of the vulva are visible. The other statue is similarly explicit but less detailed.



I wonder about the history of these sculptures. Who created them? (There was probably a sign somewhere, but I was too fascinated by the sculptures themselves to notice it.) Were they commissioned to be precisely what they are today, or did some public servant simply ask for art and end up with nude ballerinas? Did he or she worry about the public reaction to the sculptures? And what has the public reaction actually been?

I'd like to think that the reaction by everyone concerned was as nonchalant as the ballerinas themselves. With people in Florida throwing tantrums over a (non-realistic) sculpture of a nude family, it would be nice to think that Seattleites are more sophisticated than that.

I also wonder about the model (or models) for the sculptures. Does she visit the plaza to enjoy the beautiful work she helped create? Does she smile at the irony of being able to stand naked, in a sense, in the middle of downtown Seattle?

It would be interesting to try an experiment. Bring a 10-foot column and a ladder to the plaza, and pose a live, nude model on the pedestal, gazing calmly out over the city in a similarly explicit pose, with her shaved vulva nonchalantly smiling down at passersby. Would she be accepted as "art" as readily as her metal cousin? I doubt it--but why not? Why should there be a difference?