About Dicky-Bird.com

Dolly shows her front bottom

2007-04-19T11:27:00.000Z

Can you really see her genitals?

50,000 copies of Dolly magazine, says World Sex News, have been withdrawn because they accidentally show a model's genitals.

I beg to differ. A woman's pubic region is not her genitals, which are cleverly (or frustratingly) hidden away from view. More precisely, the genitals are the reproductive organs including the uterus and vagina. Less precisely, the genitals sometime include the vulva, clitoris and labia.

Movie star Sharon Stone complained that when she crossed her legs in Basic Instinct, everyone could see her genitals too. You couldn't, which is not to say that you couldn't see part of her that she considers private.

This brings up another quandary, what do we call a woman's pubic region, which distinguishes it from her vulva and genitals? "Bush" refers to pubic hair, if she has any. "Slit" is undistinguished and vulgar. Medically I've seen "genital cleft", and the British sometimes use the quaint "front bottom". Surely there is a better term out there?

Woman has "three breasts" implant

2007-04-01T09:41:00.000Z

Forget bigger boobs, a woman in California has had what is thought to be the world's first third breast implant.

"It was my husband's idea", said 28-year-old Asian-born Floral Opi, "He's always liked my breasts, and says that he can't get enough of them". Now he has more than a handful.

Opi explains that one of the advantages is getting a second cleavage and twice the sex appeal, though it has been difficult finding suitable tops. Fortunately a clothing manufacturer in Los Angeles has come up with what it thinks is the world's first triple-cupped bikini, that it has dubbed the tri-kini.

Opi feels that she won't solicit unwanted attention because she doesn't "flaunt herself about", and her surgeon, Prof. Aillo says that he wouldn't recommend the procedure to everyone, nor more than one extra implant.

Porn: is it exploitation?

2007-03-18T12:11:00.000Z

Who's exploiting whom?
Credit: Dominatrix by mikethegreat

The "exploitation" of people in the sex industry for commercialization has coined a word: "Sexploitation". But is it a bad thing?

The sex industry undoubtedly has its objectionable side, but is it inherently exploitative?

I tend to hear the term when applied to women who appear in sex films, who have been hired my male producers. Women certainly have had a raw deal in the employment marketplace, whether they are hired at lower wages than their male counterparts, or are low paid for doing menial jobs.

If this is exploitation, then indeed, women are exploited in porn films, just as they are exploited in any other job.

I've never heard the word exploitation applied to a man performing in a sex film. I wonder whether this is because there is the perception that men always want to have sex, but women want to have sex only in a loving, private relationship. Or perhaps the implication is that women are more virtuous than men, or more gullible. Surely not.

The term "exploitation" is often used in a positive manner. We exploit the land to grow food, we exploit the media to spread our messages. We exploit our efforts, skills and talents to earn money. Can we not exploit our bodies to the same ends?

Nudity: public decency offense or thought crime?

2007-02-13T11:51:00.000Z

Offense at nudity must surely be the world's only thought crime.

World Sex News reports that male riders in next month's World Naked Bike Ride, are being encouraged to wear a cock sock, so as to avoid offending public decency.

But nudity causes no harm to anyone, and the offense occurs only in the mind of the beholder.

I could be equally offended by the slogan on your tee-shirt, you dropping litter on the streets, spitting, smoking, or your choice not to recycle! Surely I am entitled to legal redress because I think you or your behaviour is offensive?

In my view, people offended at public nudity are merely embarrassed, resulting in anger at their unpredictable behaviour. Their response is not to modify their behaviour, but to blame an individual who is no more naked than themselves or their spouse.

Schools, churches and parks:new sex toy free zones

2007-02-08T12:44:00.000Z

Today's World Sex News noted that Sacramento County in California has banned the sale of "sex devices" near schools, churches, and parks [Source].

Schools?

Presumably we don't want our children to catch sight of a vibrating 14-inch life-like silicon cock; but surely such items are already sold in age-restricted stores? The news item noted that the sex devices were being sold in a lingerie store. Anyone who has kids will know that underwear with the slightest hint of sexuality, is more effective at deterring kids, than the ability of garlic cloves to fend off vampires.

I wonder if there is a ban on the sale of junk food, tobacco and drain cleaner near schools, all of which are potentially far more damaging to kids.

And churches?

I thought that sex was god's gift to mankind? What could be better than a church-going married couple pepping up their sex life with some lingerie and a feather duster.

And parks?

This must have children in mind. But kids are far more interested in buying a bar of candy than a bottle of strawberry lube.

The new law doesn't seem to have been well thought through, but I think the real reason for its implementation is embarrassment. It's one thing little Susan asking what is Southern Comfort, another when she asks what is a vibrating dildo.

Come on adults, grow up!

Blow their heads off, but no blow jobs

2005-07-25T14:11:00.000Z

America is reacting to sex again, this time found in a video game.

Politicians are jumping on the band-waggon, and family groups are exclaiming their outrage.

But this is just another example of pure hypocracy.

The game in question, is Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. I must admit, that I have not played the game, but it seems that you can shoot people, run them over, cut them up with a chain-saw, and perhaps worse.

But download a "hack", and you can unlock a hidden scene in the game which features cartoon-like chatacters having sex.

Before the sex scenes were discovered, the game was rated M: Mature Audiences which should only be played by people 17 years old and older. The sex scenes up the rating to AO: Adult Only, and should only be played by people 18 years old and older.

So what it the justification for sexual scenes being deemed worse that use of a chain saw to murder people? Beats me.

Kids: Let them smoke!

2005-07-09T13:54:00.000Z

A news headline on World Sex News today, "Stripper parents on probation", mentions a mother who hired a stripper for her son's 16th birthday, and had her 14 year-old help take photos.

Yes, I can see this story polarising readers.

But here in the UK where 16-year-olds can legally purchase cigarettes, I find it somewhat alarming that if the mother had bought her son 200 smokes, hardly anyone would have batted an eyelid.

Go figure.

Watch what you might be doing

2005-07-06T11:16:00.000Z

The advert on the right is demeaning and offensive, so says one person who complained to Britain's Advertising Standards Authority?

Why? Because the woman's hand is resting on her tummy with her fingers hidden by her thighs, suggesting that she might be masturbating. And of course we all know that masturbating is demeaning and offensive.

What bothers me is that only a few people complained, and the advert was pulled. I am quite sure that if I complained about an advert, which does not have sexual overtones, not only would I not succeed, but I would be thought to be a little unusual.

I could argue that advertising alcohol should be banned outright, because not only are thousands of people killed each year from alcohol-related diseases, but drink drivers cause the deaths of innocent people nearly every day of the year.

Lets stick to sexually provocative adverts. We must ban all adverts showing good looking men and women as they suggest to me thoughts which I won't publish here. We must ban all adverts showing undressed limbs since they are offensive to some people in some cultures.

Alternatively, perhaps people should just turn the page of an advert that they find offensive, and look in a mirror and ask themselves what makes them feel that way.

The suggestion of masturbation is not demeaning and offensive. It is some people who find it so.

Original Accurist Watch News Item

Do Sagittarians have penises?

2005-07-04T16:43:00.000Z

I'm curious why some people wouldn't go to a nudist resort. Just what is the big deal?

Embarrassment? Well, we all do things that are embarrassing, whether it's saying something inappropriate or forgetting someone's name. Is embarrassment from nudity any different to other forms of embarassement? I suppose it avoidable.

I'm not sure that the nudity is the whole story. Would you go to a nudist beach if you were the only one able to keep their clothes on? I guess the embarrassment now, is other people's nudity? Where would you look... don't you stare at the crotch of everyone you meet?

I guess this all begs the question, why the embarrassment about nudity?

I imagine that people invisage some bizarre scenario highlighting their nudity. "Good afternoon and welcome to our nudist club, and might I say that's a fine set of genitals you have... I must show them to our treasurer and his parents' family".

Perhaps people think they will be judged on their genitals? "Is that a 3-inch penis you have there, are you a Sagittarius?". Of course we're judged all the time, but it does seem unlikely that someone as naked as you, would be as critical as you might think.

I should confess that I've never been to a naturist resort before. But from what I've read and heard, nudists are far more accepting, than other groups. We've all heard and seen the snobbery expressed by some groups.

So is there any valid reason for not wanting to visit a nudist resort. Sure. You just don't want to. But I'd still be curious why.

Porn is degrading and obscene

2005-07-01T14:04:00.000Z

Obscene and Degrading?

Well, doh! Of course porn is degrading and obscene, isn't that's the point? But does that make it (a) bad (b) bad enough to ban or censor?

I've spent many years arguing that porn is not necessarily degrading or obscene, but I think I've missed the point. We can argue until hell freezes over, just how degrading and obscene, but I think that the only conclusion we can reach is that we all have a different view of how degrading and obscene.

Sure, people often consider some porn to be artistic, educational, have high production values, etc etc. But for argument sake, let's accept that but since sex brings us all down to the same level of equality, then it sounds reasonable to say that it degrades. And porn is obscene by definition.

The discussion I think we should be having, is: COMPARED to other areas of our lives, how degrading and obscene is porn.

I think we should be consistent in our criticisms, and it shouldn't matter what is degrading and obscene. Degrading and obscene is degrading and obscene.

If someone has too much to drink and throws up, that is degrading. Some people who lose their jobs consider it degrading, and those of them who take up cleaning toilets may find it degrading.

Alcohol and tobacco kills hundreds of thousands of people each year. That is obscene. Secondary effects of both vices kills too (secondary smoking and drink driving accidents). That is obscene in all senses of the word.

So it does seem that we readily tolerate degrading and obscene. And that doesn't mean that we accept it, like it, or don't do anything about it. But we do tolerate it.

So why do we single out pornography as being degrading and obscene? Personally I think it's snobbery: We all like to think that we "make love", rather than "shag". That we are connoisseurs of wines, not alcoholics, and that we can appreciate artistic erotica, and not porn.

A touch of hypocrisy perhaps?

The Opposite of Sex

2005-06-29T17:57:00.000Z

Sex is God's joke on human beings -- Bette Davis

From Tomi Ungerer's Erotoscope

Bette Davis's observation, is pretty much on the mark. Sex lends itself so well to observation humour because it's the antithesis of our non-sexual lives. In other words, it's full of opposites and contradictions.

I thank God I was raised Catholic, so sex will always be dirty. -- John Waters

Waters highlights the root of sexual humour: we all like to believe that thousands of years of evolution have brought us cultured and civilized lives, but when we get down between the sheets (or our partner's legs!), we're no different to whores, animals and even dung beetles.

Sex between a man and a woman can be absolutely wonderful - provided you get between the right man and the right woman. -- Woody Allen

Woody Allen is spot on. On the one hand, loving monogamous sex is an ideal to which we aspire. But on the other hand, we sometimes can't help getting more adventurous thoughts in our heads.

Don't worry, it only seems kinky the first time. -- Author Unknown

I'm surprised that all sex doesn't seem kinky the first time. Throughout childhood we're taught that masturbation is bad, sex before marriage is bad, sex without love is bad, sex without contraception is bad. And then a couple of surges of testosterone either makes us completely amnesic, or somehow makes bad, good.

"It is not true that sex degrades women... if it is any good." -- Alan Partridge

It was Germaine Greer who belived that if we all displayed our genitals, it would equalise us all, and went on to practice what we preach in Screw magazine. Alan Partridge's joke is not that good sex does not degrade, but that sex does degrade. It bring us all down to the animal level: Judges, royalty, your parents, you and I. Our naive children would probably disagree with us.

Now that's funny.

Earth girls have it easy

2005-06-27T15:46:00.000Z

The title is a spin on a 1988 B-movie "Earth Girls are Easy". Obviously girls are not easy, but I think there is a good argument to suggest that when it comes down to getting sex, girls do have it easy. As the saying goes:

Women can have sex with any man they want. But men can have sex only with women who will let them.

OK, it's an over-generalization, but there an element of truth. Most women could probably have sex with most men they meet, whereas most men will probably not be able to have sex with most (if any!) women they meet.

If we accept the generalization, what does this imbalance of power mean? Why should it be the case?

Women are more choosy.
Women have better communication skills.
Women are better seductresses.
Women want more meaningful relationships.

But then again, perhaps it's not so easy for women. After all, they are in competition for a select group of men... who probably haven't much incentive for being good in bed since there a line of women waiting to jump into bed with them. And you wonder why some men are unfaithful.

On the plus side, unpopular men hopefully end up having more time to do other more constructive things. While some of them learn a bit more about the opposite sex... respect, patience, dedication, write blogs on sex and culture, etc, it's true that some men become a little geeky.

So there you have it. Women have a choice between hapless hunks and quirky geeks. I guess Earth girls don't have it so easy after all. But I bet most guys would like to have the same choice.

Homosexuality is unnatural

2005-06-26T12:40:00.000Z

Imagine you were the opposite sex. Would you be attracted to men or women?

Your head reasons that you that would remain the same sexuality as you are now, and fancy the opposite gender as you do now... quite unnatural! but your heart still adores the same gender as you do now, but that would change your sexuality... quite unnatural!

I guess the results are only truly acceptable if you are bisexual!

I've heard the statement that "Homosexuality is unnatural" by many anti-gays, but like most throw-away lines, it's rarely examined further. Has it never occurred to anti-gays that homosexuals find heterosexuality equally unnatural?

It does seem that if you were the opposite sex, your desires would equally appear unnatural.

Or course the argument is somewhat contrived. Polyester is unnatural, but anti-gays don't shun clothes made from it. Modern medicine is unnatural and the same point applies.

Perhaps we could argue that being anti-gay is unnatural, but then again the diversity of mankind, both good and bad, is as natural as the clouds in the sky.

Surely what people mean by unnatural, is something they don't naturally like. But that's no reason to dislike the person. I don't like tobacco and the fact that it kills hundreds of thousands of people each year. But I have nothing against tobacconists.

Incidentally, the picture refers to the cockney expression, "he's as queer as a clockwork orange", which refers to someone's unusualness, rather than being gay.

Genteel genitals

2005-06-24T14:13:00.000Z

Nudists don't expose their genitals any more than non-nudists expose their noses.

But whether you're a nudist or a streaker, the reasons given for why people should not have their genitals on display is quite interesting.

The "genitals look disgusting" argument, is somewhat subjective. I might find your greasy hair, or those old ill-fitting jeans disgusting too, but what will the response be, if I ask you to cover them up?

The "genitals are private" argument, is also subjective. Yours may be private to you, my bank statement is private to me.

"There are children around" argument, is no different to saying that there are vegetarians around. It pre-supposes that children (or vegetarians) shouldn't see genitals, for whatever reason. Ironically, young children are usually as comfortable with nudity as are nudists; toddlers are happy running around naked nearly anywhere.

The "genitals are used in the sex act" argument, tends to forget that our fingers, mouth and tongue, are often far more versitile during sex and foreplay.

The "genitals arouse me" argument, seems to be contradicted by the "genitals look disgusting" argument. And of course anyone dressed in sexy clothes can be arousing.

I am quite happy for you to have the right not to view other people's genitals. But I'm still curious why.

Masturbation: The Wanker Effect

2005-06-23T22:09:00.000Z

People will admit to all kinds of indignities, from throwing up after drinking too much, to a dose of diarrhoea after eating the wrong food. But mention masturbation, and you get the kind of look as if you'd accused them of contracting a sexually transmitted disease.

I'm sure it's partly embarrassment. But I think it's more to do with not wanting to admit to something which might compare infavourably with others.

What? You masturbate how often! You can only masturbate with your eyes closed! You do what with your bottom! Whose underwear?!

It's no surprise that if you ask a group of people if they masturbate, and you'd be lucky to get any responses at all. No-one want to make the first move and be singled out as the group wanker.

But ask the same group of people, "Who doesn't masturbate?", instantly equalises everyone, and I'd bet you'd get smiles all round.

I'd guess you'd call this the "Wanker Effect". No-one wants to be a wanker, and it's difficult to explain that I'm in a loving meaningful relationship with myself.

Porn: the ambiguous word

2005-06-22T09:02:00.000Z

Porn bugs me. Not the material, but the word. On the one hand, it is not specific enough to explain what you and I mean by porn. On the other hand, it is a word loaded with negative meaning: porn by some definitions is inherently bad.

But what surprises me about the use of the word porn, is that with so many points of view, we haven't really bothered to clarify its use.

So when I hear someone argue that porn should be banned, I wonder whether they mean everything that includes a naked buttock, or anything that is deemed illegally pornographic (whatever that means).

Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or obscenity, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . but I know it when I see it . . . (Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964)).

It is clear that pornography is not only subjective, but the other vital criteria is context. When we stand naked in front of mirror, we see a non-pornographic image of ourselves. When someone else stands naked in front of a public-facing window, the image becomes potentially pornographic, and and perhaps more or less so, depending on whether that person is an old person, someone in their prime, or a child. In other words, a sexually explicity image is not necessarily pornographic.

So does porn apply only to humans? Naked animals don't seem to fall into the category, but copulating animals could. And you would think that objects have nothing to do with porn, except that nude representations of people (ie. statues and paintings) are thought to be pornographic by some, and the Ron Jeremy 10-inch lifelike dildo leaves nothing to the imagination.

So here's my new all-encompassing definition of porn:

Pornography: a subjective, sexually provocative image, that we consider is seen in an inappropriate context.

It is acknowledged that (1) pornography is subjective (2) That an image needs to remind us of sex; nudity does sometimes (3) that there is a time and a place for everything, and this may change depending on culture, religious reasons, etc.

All we need to do now, is define various categories of porn, for example, non-consensual porn, non-violent porn, child porn, that adequately allows us define when we mean that porn is acceptable, or not. But we'll save that for another day.

Nudity on TV

2005-06-21T12:18:00.000Z

Nudity on TV is in the news headlines again, as Australian Members of Parliament (MPs) talk about whether there is too much in Big Brother on free-to-air television.

And that seems to be the complaint, that it is on regular TV, which is accessible by anyone. There seem to be two extreme solutions: (1) a complete ban of nudity on free-to-air TV (2) for people to chill.

While a complete bans solves the "problem" since nudity could still be available on cable-TV, it would make sense to apply this solution to any aspect of free-to-air TV that offends people. I could argue that I don't want free-to-air TV showing any activity that my adversely affect my kids, such as smoking, drinking, loutish behaviour, bad language or even bad grammar! And other groups may argue for even more chaste behaviour.

On the other hand, chilling out and switching channel takes just a few moments. But where do we draw the line. Do we allow full-on sex on free-to-air TV, and expect people to chill and change channels if offended?

Is there a compromise? Either you see nudity or you don't. One solution I can see is better classification of televised material. I wouldn't be surprised to see nudity in Big Brother, but if I wasn't, how could I check?

It does not seem unreasonable that programmes should be classified, by the programme makers, according to their contents, on a scale of 1 to 10, for sex, language, violence, lawful activity, etc. Online digital TV guides would make it possible to screen programmes based on such critia.

But then again, perhaps those who are offended by the human body should question their perspective. Surely they don't avoid mirrors when naked, and ask their spouses to avert their eyes. So perhaps the nudity is not the issue?

I think people are offended by TV nudity because they are embarrassed, and if they are with company, they do not know what to say or how to behave. I wonder whether people who watch TV alone, would be offended by nudity on free-to-air TV?

The Bible and Dildoes

2005-06-20T13:41:00.000Z

'Dildoes are bad' says the Bible, according to a headline entry from World Sex News today.

I'm always a little wary about (a) what the Bible writes, (b) what it means (c) what was meant. Here is the same passage (Ezekiel 16:17) from different versions of the Bible:

King James Version: Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee, and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them...
New Life Version: You also took your objects of beauty made of My gold and silver, which I had given you. And you used them to make things that looked like men, that you might play with them as a woman who sells the use of her body...
Contemporary English Version: You made idols out of the gold and silver jewelry I gave you, then you sinned by worshiping those idols...
The Message: And then you took all that fine jewelry I gave you, my gold and my silver, and made pornographic images of them for your brothels...

The context of the verse implies that Ezekiel believes that God says that "Such things should not happen". But it is not always clear "what should not happen".

The entire verse is about a married woman called Jerusalem who becomes a prostitute and sacrifices her children to her idols. Using a dildo is just one of the observations.

It does seem that the use of a dildo is mentioned in the same way that a drunk driver would be accused of drinking; it's not the drinking alcohol is necessary bad, but it could apppear so in a wider context. The use of guns are also judged differently depending on whether we are discussing a gun-touting criminal or a gun-carrying policemen. And nudity is judged differently depending on whether the subject is a new born baby or a man in your daughter's changing room.

But I guess we shouldn't forget that the woman murdered her two children. And that God decides that she will be stripped naked and stoned to death.

Other interesting links