Dolly shows her front bottom

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50,000 copies of Dolly magazine, says World Sex News, have been withdrawn because they accidentally show a model's genitals.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

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?

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?

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

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

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!

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.