Category Archives: sex

Threesome From Hell?: Rolling Stone’s True(ly) Blood(y) Cover…

Later today I’m posting a TV piece, mainly about True Blood, Big Brother and Mad Men. But I just had to post this cover shot from the new issue of Rolling Stone magazine. What do you make of it? You can go to RollingStone.com to get more info about it (and more pics, too…)

Bookmark and Share

3 Comments

Filed under sex, True Blood, TV

Ear (& Eye) Candy: Faith Returns, Eva Mendes’s Sex Tape, and Spring Awakening’s GREAT singer

Yo peeps. Haven’t posted an Ear (and Eye) Candy in a few weeks. But discovered some recent stuff I thought I’d share with y’all this week. Enjoy…!

{FAITH EVANS}

I woke up to an email from a Brooklyn buddy (hi TG!): Faith Evan’s new single. Brought back crazy memories of the mid-90s when I used to chill at a spot called Buddha Bar, where Faith’s “Love Like This” always rocked the crowd of models and music execs ready to get a groove on. I know she’s a big star but I always felt like Faith should have been a bigger star than she already is: her voice is one of those great instruments that can do club-bangers as well as soft and gentle slow jams that rock your heart (“Soon as I Get Home” is a nothing less than a 90s r&b classic) and she’s an incredible songwriter (for Mary J. Blige and others). Soul Culture and Bossip are premiering the new single “Gone Already” from Faith’s new CD Something About Faith. It’s a yummy, piano-driven ballad of love lost and found anchored by the sweet yet emotionally-tortured vocal style that goes right to your soul.

Hear it here or here.

{LAUREN PRITCHARD}

When I saw Spring Awakening on Broadway a few years ago with my buddy Al (we had to support fellow Brown alum Duncan Sheik in his Broadway composing debut!), we both walked away humming a tune called “I Don’t Do Sadness/Blue Wind,” mostly because of the  vocal performance of Lauren Pritchard as Ilse. A smoky, expressive and surprising wonder, Lauren’s voice is like a warm breeze on a chilly day, wrapping you up in its gorgeous tones and carrying you along to a place that feels like home. As you can tell, I love her voice. She has a new single “Painkillers,” from her upcoming debut CD Wasted in Jackson (out September 20); the vid’s below. (And as a bonus, also check out her portion of the Spring Awakening song, if you’re not familiar with it!)

{EVA MENDES}

I’m an Eva Mendes fan, have been since Training Day and that Out of Time flick. I don’t think Hollywood’s really found a way to utilize the full scope of her talents (unless, apparently, she co-starring with Denzel, who I guess, would make anyone look good), but til then, well, she’s fun to behold. Um, homegirl isn’t singing in this clip below, but the sound of the laughter potentially erupting from your gut might sound like music if you’re having the sorta day I’ve been having. Might as well come completely clean: It’s smarter than I expected. Which makes me laugh even harder. Here’s the eagerly-awaited Eva Mendes Sex Tape. Enjoy!

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Leave a comment

Filed under Ear Candy, music, sex

Ear Candy #2 … and some Eye (popping!) Candy, too!

Music that’s been making me happy…:

{AEROPLANE}

Apparently this Belgium dance-music crew likes its retro-disco danced to a modern island-y beat, and I love that they do. This glossy beaut manages to be a coke-high and a weed come-down all at once, like Sly & Robbie & Grace found a lost Silver Convention track and dressed it up for a rocking party in the 21st century…

{GIRLS}

Girls is lo-fi as power pop, though at their Myspace page they describe themselves as “tropical/gothic/trash.” Fair enough. Their “Lust for Life” isn’t brand new, but I discovered this San Francisco band recently, and I can say, I was thrilled to find out the song wasn’t some shoegazing retread of Iggy’s classic tune. No, this is all coy pop hedonism-love song stuff, with a sense of fun and longing that pours right out of the ringing guitars and the snotty hi-teen vocals…and I love a song with hand-claps…They made an x-rated version of the video which is QUITE raw, with LOTS of nudity, including plenty of  bare breasts and at least one shot of a hard dick being used as a microphone…definitely NSFW…but fun as fuck, and I think better the tone and energy of the song…Here’s the original version:

You can see the x-rated one here: NSFW: Girls’ “Lust for Life” Video Hardcore XXX Version.

{JANELLE MONAE}

And just because I have to, and just because I didnt much care for the “Tightrope” song in its original incarnation, I have to include this remix video of the ArchAndroid first single, featuring B.o.B. and Lupe Fiasco. And also because it might be sexiest vid since Beyonce’s “Single Ladies” and because Janelle strikes the right kind of poses—going from rapper to supermodel with just a shoulder bend, hands on hips, and a blink and stare…haughtiness never seemed so crazy down-to-earth and real. LOVE HER. (And, yo, who’s the mysterious guitarist in the background? Is that who I THINK it is???)

2 Comments

Filed under General Fabulousness, music, sex, style, videos

Drawn That Way

Quote of the Day: “You better speak up now if you want your piece/You better speak up now/It won’t mean a thing later/Yesterday’s news is tomorrow’s fish and chip paper…” “Fish n Chip Paper” by Elvis Costello

Sexual harassment is no laughing matter. Whether it be unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors, it’s a serious offense. And, again, not something one should laugh at. Well, okay, not usually. Some of you might have seen this clip before. It’s a mock(?) PSA about preventing sexual harassment in the workplace. Someone sent it to me the other day and it sorta cracked me up–especially some of the reaction shots of the “victims” once it really gets going…I think it’s funny cause it crosses some gender and race lines that speak much louder than one expects…Check it out:

*****************************

As for this New York Post cartoon that’s making waves all over the place: Um, a chimp, a direct reference to the stimulus package, a smoking gun, a newly-elected black president? Wrong on so many levels that I don’t even know how to respond. Part of me is used to these ridiculously racist and homophobic cartoons the Post tries to pawn off as social commentary. But, even if I wanted to try to analyze it enough to think that maybe the cartoonist was just making a mockery of all the idiots in DC, just riffing on those old  “chimp-with-a-typewriter” jokes as a way of making our government leaders look stupid, another part of me remembers that the artist Sean Delonas has never shied away from doing a lot of the racist, sexist, homophobic work that even some Post writers refuse to indulge in (or only signify). Two white cops shoot a chimp dead–and, at this point in our nation’s twisted history, the ONLY joke he could think to make was about the most important issue Barack Obama is dealing with at the moment? Did he chuckle as he was writing the dialogue bubble? Was he thinking, “I’ll fix that monkey sitting in the White House”? We’ll never know. What I know is that–even though we wanna talk about “post-racial” this, “new-day” that–as I once heard a friend’s mother say, “white folks never cease to amaze me.” My question is this: How do we get to “Post-racial” when we can’t even get past The Post?

Gawker.com provides a gallery of Delonas’ greatest cartoon “hits” (with his favorite targets: gays, women, blacks, just about anyone different than him.) Click here to see some of them, if you like.

1 Comment

Filed under Barack, sex

She Strips, Magically!

Okay, this is a little racy, but I also think it’s completely hilarious and keeps with today’s theme of sexy dancing–or in this case, stripping. It’s Ursula Martinez aka the Nude Lady Stripper Magician. If FEMALE NUDITY offends or bothers you, DO NOT WATCH THIS VIDEO…

HERE IT IS…enjoy! She makes magic! In her undies!!!

Leave a comment

Filed under magic, sex

Sex sells (sometimes…)

Quote of the Day: “Sexuality is all I’ll ever need/Sexuality, I’m gonna let my body be free…” “Sexuality” by Prince


Since I got all sentimental on Monday and talked about my new teaching position, we had to save the sex for today. 

Here are two commercials getting talked about all over the place, one a French safe sex campaign, the other one a notorious, now-banned Peta ad that won’t be running during the Super Bowl festival of commercials…Too sexy for their adverts? You decide…click below…

Leave a comment

Filed under sex, TV

Sex Type Thing: Gay-for-Pay

Quote of the Day: “Have you ever wanted to play with someone so much you’d taken any one, boy or girl?” — “Anna Stesia” by Prince

Recently I talked to a straight guy who told me that he wanted to experiment sexually with another guy. It was, I found out, a come-on, of sorts. Which I turned down, mainly because about seven years ago I had a slight hook-up thing with his sister. There was no way I was gonna get involved in that. What did fascinate me though was that this guy wanted to experiment partly because of something he saw on the Internet, a website that featured straight guys having sex with other straight guys, something called gay-for-pay. So of course I had to look into it. Which meant I talked to peeps I know. The following article grew out of one such conversation… (WARNING: Some of the links in this story are rather, um, raw…I’m just sayin’…)

I have a question: If a straight guy has sex with a guy, is he not actually straight? Or is he a straight guy who’s had sex with a guy? I had a conversation with a friend the other day who’s convinced that if a guy who identifies as “straight” has any sort of sexual contact with another man—oral, anal, a good old-fashioned hand job, a kiss—that straight guy is really gay. Or, at the least, bisexual. Here’s the thing, though: my friend doesn’t feel the same way about women. Women who identify as straight who have sexual relations with another woman are not lesbians; they’re just “open-minded about sexual experimentation.” They are “testing their sexual limits,” he says.


To answer the question that you may no doubt have while reading this: Yes, my friend understands the double standard at play in his logic (or lack thereof). But he just can’t seem to shake it. You touch a dude or let a dude touch you, you’re gay. Or bi. Either way, I learned, the guy is thus labeled. Defined. Put in a box that, even if my friend doesn’t realize it, makes that guy lesser somehow, not quite a man, tainted. As my friend said to me, “Look at it this way. If you’re a dude who finds out your woman’s been with women, that’s hot. If a woman who finds out her man’s been with dudes? No, that woman is not sticking around for that.” Apparently in my friend’s eyes, the idea of sexual experimentation doesn’t really appeal to women—unless it’s between two women.

I like having these kinds of conversations with friends and acquaintances because I always feel like I learn more about life, about the ways other people look at the world, Even if we disagree, I can always walk away from discussions knowing that sometimes some smart people think and say some really dumb things. And there’s something reassuring about that.

All that said, I’ve been thinking a bit about the whole idea of sex between “straight” men. Not just because I’ve had it (and was recently offered it again), but because I’ve always been intrigued by the fluidity of sexuality, and because my new non-fiction book, the follow-up to HUNG, deals with some of these issues. A coupla years ago I became fascinated by perhaps the greatest example of that fluidity, the idea of “Gay-For-Pay,” the porn phenomenon in which ostensibly straight guys—or at least “straight-identified”—guys indulge in rampant sex scenes with other guys, and get paid (well) for it. I was to understand that one of the reasons so many straight guys fuck around with guys on camera is because if one wants to work in the porn biz, and apparently there are a bunch of cute, young, hung, buff dudes who do, one will never make much money as a stud for hire in straight porn, because in the straight porn world, the women are the real stars—the faces on the DVD boxes, as it were, the selling points. Which, I guess, makes some sense: straight guys who watch porn probably watch it for the women getting screwed, not the guys doing the screwing, right? (I must note here, however, that many straight guys I’ve talked to—in life and in research for this book—have told me that they in fact do pay a bit of attention to the dick in the straight porn scenes they watch—it’s just not real PORN without a dick doing some penetrating—and the bigger the better. Of course they do. Guys look at other guys’ dicks. I guess it’s just not a selling point… okay, moving on…)

Personally, I’ve had no problem, ethically speaking, with gay-for-pay. To be honest, there’s something oddly on-target about it to me. I mean, porn is (some may debate this) acting, is it not? And I’m guessing a bunch of porn peeps do it for the money, right? So why not go, if your heart and dick and orifices can stand it, where the money is? But also, I’ll admit, there is something fascinatingly sexy, to me, about the idea of “straight” guys being sexually intimate with each other, trying new things, seeing how the other half comes. I’ve had sex with guys who think of themselves as straight—either because they really are, or because they need the label fixed to themselves to avoid that taint I spoke of earlier—and if it’s just about sex, what’s the problem? Some of us call ourselves Christian or black or vegetarian when we know deep down inside that we’re really, truly not. Some “straight” guys, I think, don’t find what they need with women. In prison, for instance, they simply can’t. Just as some “straight” women, from what I’ve heard, don’t find all their sexual needs with men. What’s sorta funny about the gay-for-pay thing to me is that once upon a time, a few decades ago, I think some of these same boys might well have experimented across the sexual orientation divide and called it Free Love—I think of that great line, for instance, from the hippie musical Hair when Wolf says that he wouldn’t throw Mick Jagger out of bed. But generations later—in a post-Paris Hilton world, savvier about celebrity and fame, looser in their feelings about both porn and public sexuality, willing to do a lot of things to get paid, there’s a bunch of boys who say you can take your Free Love and shove it: I look good. I got a big dick. I got a nice body. You need a cock sucked? You’re paying me a few grand to do that and fuck a dude in the ass, a little more even to take the dick in my ass? No problemo. Point me to the set, man.

Recently I came across a post at a great site called Fleshbot which chastised gay-for-pay porn actor Patrick Bateman (uh, yes, apparently he’s named himself after the lead character in American Psycho—what might that tell us? Or that his other stage name is Matt Murdock, the AKA of Marvel Comics Daredevil). Apparently Bateman was caught in some behind-the-scenes footage, getting fucked on camera for the first time. That’s not why he was being chastised. In the scenes, Patrick is heard (be)moaning the fact that he was taking dick, calling it “level seven and a half” of Dante’s 7 levels of Hell, whining about his discomfort, basically wondering how anybody could do what he was doing for pleasure. At least that was the tone of it. The writer at Fleshbot basically ripped Bateman a new one, wondering how Bateman could behave the way he was behaving, say the things he was saying, when much of his audience does what he’s doing all the time, and LIKE IT!!! Wasn’t Bateman’s behavior a smack in the face to all those bottoms out there who buy his DVDs and download his scenes? And it didn’t help that Bateman’s also (as Murdock, this time) in a scene on another website, screwing a guy doggy style—with a girlie magazine propped on the bottom guy’s back, apparently to keep Bateman excited and motivated. As if the money wasn’t enough, one guesses. (All dollars aside, the other thing that I found interesting about Bateman’s outtakes was the rock-hard, apparently “hurts-so-good” erection he managed to maintain during the doggy-style scene and the transfer to the reverse cowgirl position that came next. Methinks the lad doth protest too much…)

Frankly Bateman’s behavior on set—which I’m assuming we were never supposed to see, being “outtakes”—doesn’t, to me, differ that much from all the joking that happens on talk shows when mainstream straight actors play gay. You’ve seen it, actors describing how hard it is to kiss a guy who hasn’t shaved or breaking into fits of embarrassed giggles when talking about an intimate scene. I always feel like saying, Don’t do the movie if you’re only gonna go on Leno and be all “icky” adolescent about the fact that you had to kiss a guy (even though I’m becoming cynical enough to think this just might be good marketing, the best way to appeal to all that latent homo guy energy out there that wants to go watch Jake Gyllenhall take it but don’t want to act like they want to see it.) Should gay or bi guys feel the same way about Batemen that I do about straight actors on Leno or Letterman? Even as so many of us keep sites like Broke Straight Boys and Sean Cody and College Dudes 24/7—all of which majorly tout the straightness of their “models”, and are fun; I’ve checked them all out  a few times—in business? I wonder…Particularly because of Cody Cummings.

Cody is a internet porn star, too. He’s straight, from what I understand. According to his site, his favorite things are “nice butts, spitting on a pink butthole (I know, kinky!), dime-pieces (hot women), shoes, ps2, Reese’s Butter Cups, rough sex, tanning, and football.” Lately he’s been starting to incorporate intimate moments with guys into his shoots. But only oral, nothing beyond that—apparently those pink buttholes are only of the dime-piece variety. And yet, whenever an update of Cody’s site appears on Queerclick, a great site that aggregates all the porn sites for one-stop clicking, the readers there lash into Cody again and again for not going farther with guys, for not fucking or taking dick himself. Now, Cody is straight, right? Is it possible there’s just not enough cash in the world to make him cross the line into hardcore man-on-man sex, just because others do? But, his critics shout, how can he take all that hard-earned gay audience money if he’s not going to give the people what they want to see? And I ask: there are tons of gay-for-payers out there; why would someone want to essentially force a “straight” guy to have sex with another guy if, apparently, it’s not what he’s feeling? Just for your entertainment? If anything, isn’t Cody selling a real true “straight” guy image—that vaunted image of masculinity—that gay and bi guys supposedly love so much? So trady and butch that he’ll “settle” for a BJ cause he can’t find one or is too lazy to look elsewhere? Wouldn’t crossing over into hardcore fucking just start the rumors—“oh, yeh, we always knew he was a fag anyway.” I don’t know. I do know that in my more cynical moments I look at it another way: Cody is just biding his time until the uproar about him is so loud that when he does decide to go “all the way,” they’ll be so much interest that peeps will pay top dollar to see it. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. Gay-for-pay, at the end of the day, is a concept as old as prostitution, probably. Hetero dudes have probably been selling themselves to the highest gay bidder since Alexander the Great was a tyke. And, I guess some “straight” guys just figure: if some gay guy’s gonna pay for me to be “gay” with him, I won’t tell if he won’t. I’m still straight. And hetero dudes know deep down—sorta like Cody Cummings—that what they’re selling is really just the myth of masculinity that all men buy into. Apparently a little of it goes a long way to satisfy a craving, whatever one’s sexual orientation is.

But I still wonder. Because it always seemed to me that one’s “sexual orientation” (I hate that phrase, by the way) always had more to do—especially considering that fluidity of purpose and desire—with who you loved rather than who you fucked, which is why I so often use quotation marks around words like “gay” and “straight”. And I don’t see a whole lotta loving at the male-4-male porn sites I’ve been to—other than maybe a love of cold hard cash. I’ve gone to them to see sex. Between guys. Who cares what they call themselves in “real life”? I’m not even that concerned about what I call myself when I’m in bed with a man or (less frequently these days) a woman. I just want it to feel good.

Leave a comment

Filed under gay-for-pay, sex