ThinkNaughty is back. Sort of.

A couple of years ago, I started a new blog dedicated to my research on sex and sexuality called Unfortunately, was swallowed whole when LeafyHost, my former webhost, collapsed last year. I still haven’t been able to get the domain name unlocked or access to the files there. Fortunately, I had a fairly recent backup when LeafyHost went under. Since it doesn’t look like I’ll be able to get control of my domain name back, I’ve decided to import the posts here. That means there’s some slightly risque material on the site now, but nothing prurient or gratuitous, I promise — this is research, folks, not porn. [Continue reading]

Kindling for Book Lovers

Stephen at HD BizBlog follows a train of thought from the Kindle’s terms of service through Fahrenheit 451 to Webster’s definition of “kindle” in his post, Why Call it “Kindle”. Now, I kinda like the Kindle (or, rather, I want to like the Kindle), but I do share Stephen’s curiosity about how the product got its name. I can only imagine it went something like this: [swirly fade out]

[Scene: A conference room at Amazon’s secret underground headquarters high above the Arctic Circle]

[Continue reading]

Modesty::Raunch Culture

This is good. [Continue reading]

Female Genital Cutting, Sexuality, and Anti-FGC Advocacy

This post is a response to the increasingly heated thread at Feministe on Female Genital Cutting (FGC). Nearly every mention of FGC in our society elicits condemnation of the practices and the people who practice them as “bestial”, “barbarian”, “inhuman”, “uncivilized”, “heinous”, etc., which has a tendency to set me off. For a long time I’ve wondered about the incredible and disproportional response FGC incites in Westerners, feminists and non-feminists alike, responses which generally are very far removed from the reported responses and experiences of women who have undergone some form of FGC. [Continue reading]

What Is Sex For, Anyway

With the issue of what people do with their genitals looming larger with every passing day, I’ve been thinking about the way people talk about the function of sex. “It’s for procreation”, they say. Asked why, they may point to Genesis, saying “God said so.” Or they may point to Darwin, claiming “natural selection says so.” Underlying even sex-postivist, ethical slut, reclaiming cunt attitudes is a sense that reproduction is the primary function of intercourse — they just believe we’re lucky enough to be smart enough to figure out ways to forestall reproduction and still have the sex. [Continue reading]

Ex-Gay? Unhappy (about losing)?

From USA Today: Christian group backs off case against blog parody [Continue reading]

Ex-Gay? Unhappy?

Parody billboard Justinsomnia posted this great parody of “ex-gay” ministry Exodus International’s recruiting billboard (original pictured below). Justinsomnia received a cease-and-desist letter from Exodus International. Screw Exodus International, parody is free speech. [Continue reading]

Notes Towards a Gender Analysis of the X-Men

Female X-Men

Power comes from control over their surroundings or other people; beautiful (some would say “stacked”)

  • Dr. Jean Grey: intuitive, empathic, manipulates people and things from a distance
  • Storm: controls natural forces
  • Rogue: consumer, parasite; saps men of their vital powers

Male X-Men

Power comes from ability to physically defeat opponents; some good-looking, some not so much (e.g. Nightcrawler)

  • Psyclops (sp?): creates energy, destroys all in his sight; male gaze destroys opponents
  • [Continue reading]

Pornographic Assumptions

Arwan at Pandagon describes herself as pro-sex, anti-porn, opening up a discussion on the boundaries of pornography and how individuals interact with (or choose not to) those boundaries. I left a long comment responding to two of the commentors’ posts, both of which concerned me for their projection of assumptions about the nature of porn onto those who produce and consume it. The comment is in the moderation queue, and I don’t know how that works over there, so I figured I’d post it here (plus, I make some points I want to come back to someday, and this site is for storing ideas I want to come back to someday): [Continue reading]

No, Really, How Gay am I?

According to the Epstein Sexual Orientation Inventory (ESOI), of which the Scientific American test is an extract (and if I want to be cynical, an extract expressly designed to cater to the current sensationalization of bisexuality, especially female bisexuality), I’m pretty heterosexual, with a mean sexual orientation (MSO) of “3” and a sexual orientation range (SOR) of “6”. What that means, so far as I can tell, is I’m pretty much heterosexual (no surprise there) but have a high degree of sexual flexibility (they italicize it, so it must be important). [Continue reading]