Description: Turn Me On movie discovers the historical past of the vibrator. Through a team of sexpert people, the documental reveals the socially hidden sex device

Also known as: Too Much Pussy. Description: You can find more info about this documentary flick at it's imdb page.

In honor of Futurama ending its run on Comedy Central this month, executive producer David X. Cohen took to Reddit yesterday to answer questions from all comers. Here are some of the most interesting tidbits to come out of it.

On the ending of the series:

When Futurama first got cancelled after four seasons on Fox, it was a little more upsetting. Four seasons is a very intermediate amount... not clearly a failure or a success. Most shows get cancelled either several seasons earlier or several later. So we weren't sure how to feel. I guess we decided on "bad".

Now having done seven seasons by our count (we include the four DVD movies as season five), and 140 episodes, it feels like a good run. If you were told in advance your show would make it that far, you would jump at the deal. Granted it took us 14 years to do seven seasons, but still, not too bad.

Also with the 52 recent episodes for Comedy Central I feel like we really got to a lot of subjects that we wanted to cover and got to develop the characters quite a bit... and this current final(?) season ends with a very strong, emotional run. So all in all, yes, I will feel okay with it if this really is the end.

The idea of catching up to the Simpsons if we were to come back is definitely more of a nightmare than a dream. To do that, we'd have to get an order of "20 episodes a year for 20 years". Noooooooooo!

On whether they write in hidden easter eggs or if the animators put them in themselves:

A mix. Probably about 50-50. We write some into the script, and sometimes they surprise us. Sometimes we mention something in passing, like calling for an "Escher-esque" background, and they go nuts and animate a 3D landscape of rotating gears in an impossible Escher geometry. Also sometimes too they try to sneak things by us. For example in the "Beast with Two Bucks" alien sex shop, which will be appearing again later this season, we didn't notice until the episode was almost done that they had stuck a few too many disturbing alien "toys" in the display cases. We might have managed to erase them in time. Don't look to closely.

On the balance of serious themes with jokes:

When the show first started we didn't know what the balance should be in terms of character stories and emotion vs. serious sci-fi themes. At first I think we erred in not diving far enough into the sci-fi... we were afraid it might undercut the personal stories. But as we went along it became clearer that taking the sci-fi space-opera-drama seriously only helped the personal stories. The dramatic tension when played seriously helps the jokes play better as contrast to that. So the surprise was that we could and should do both. In the best episodes we manage that.

On what to expect from the series finale:

I feel like we're starting to get pretty good at writing series finales — it's a bad sign when you have a lot of experience doing that. We are definitely going for the model of "Epic Sci Fi" blended with "possibly heart breaking emotional story". In that vein I think it's a little closer to "The Devil's Hands" in that we will spend more time on the Fry-Leela angle. As I've mentioned elsewhere, we will actually see Fry and Leela's real, genuine, actual, factual wedding in this one. People get angry with me for saying that because they think I've given too much away, but rest assured that it moves onward and upward and backward and pretty much in all directions from there.

On writing all the science jokes in the series:

We had a ridiculously over-educated writing staff on Futurama. I ranked somewhere in the middle with my BA in physics and Masters in computer science. We also had Ken Keeler with a PhD in Applied Math, Jeff Westbrook PhD in Computer Science, and Bill Odenkirk with a PhD in chemistry. And throw in Stewart Burns with a masters in math. So it was very rare that we did not feel we could deal with the actual science ourselves. However, on rare occasions when I did feel the need to go beyond our walls, I most often consulted my old friend David Schiminovich, who is a Professor of Astrophysics at Columbia University.

As for the theorem that saves the day in the episode "The Prisoner of Benda", that was a real theorem proved by Ken Keeler. In the characters had all switched brains according to certain rules (the same two characters couldn't switch back once switched), and as we worked on the story we became curious about whether it would in fact be possible to get the characters out of their predicament. Ken proved the theorem and we decided to actually feature it in the episode. It's a group theory problem, for you math people.

Regarding the grandfather paradox in "Roswell that Ends Well"... errrr... to be honest, I don't think we tried too hard on the science there. Once you get into time travel, all bets are off. We just put it out there and hope no one complains too much.

On Dr. Zoidberg:

Hey! Someone already answered this for me. And worse yet, they were somewhat right (I created a video game for the Apple II in the 1980's called "ZOID". This game was only played by me and my dad, in case you're wondering why you never saw it.)

Going into a little more detail... when Matt and I were first working on the premise of the series, we thought it would be useful to have a doctor on the crew. My idea for Dr. Zoidberg was based on something that always bugged me about the original Star Trek. Namely: I always thought that if I were Mr. Spock, a Vulcan, I would not feel very comfortable having a doctor of another species operating on me. So the idea was that Dr. Zoidberg would be knowledgeable only about the bizarre anatomy of his own species.

It was only later that Dr. Zoidberg took on the deeper(?) aspects of his personality... being lonely, poor, smelly, pathetic in every way. Once we started down that path, it seemed funny to keep piling it on.
As a side note, that's a pretty good way to get an animated character going. Start with a one-joke character that people can understand, then add on later if and as the show continues.

On how he started running Futurama:

When I was working as a writer at the Simpsons in the mid-late 1990s, there was a persistent rumor that Matt was concocting a new sci-fi show. But it was very hush-hush. One day he summoned me for a lunch meeting... me being the "nerd" of the writing staff — a title for which there was extremely stiff competition — he wanted to know if I might be interested in working on it with him. I drooled. In retrospect, it was a risky move to leave the Simpsons. Many other writers have made a full career there, grown old, raised grandchildren in the writing room... but of course at that time we didn't know the Simpsons would go 20+ years so it seemed like I was getting out just before it crashed in season 10 or so.

On a potential Futurama spinoff:

We thought about this quite a bit... the one we almost attempted on several occasions as a "one episode" spinoff was the Zapp & Kif show. That's an example of an episode I always wanted to do that we still didn't get around to, even after the four bonus seasons on Comedy Central. My glorious dream was to do a Star-Trek-style episode where we stayed with Zapp and Kif's mission the entire time, and just have them run into the Planet Express crew in passing at some point. We would have also done a full new version of the opening credits and all. We never quite figured out the story for this one. Also we were nervous that people would get confused and angry, and throw things at the TV. I guess we panicked and chickened out. Now I feel bad.

On his favorite episode:

I usually cite "The Luck of the Fryrish" as my favorite. That's the one where Fry learns about his long-deceased brother. It was the first episode where we out-and-out went for a tear in the eye at the end of the show. This is a high degree of difficulty on an animated show, so we weren't at all sure if it would work well or how people would react. It turned out to be a fan favorite and subsequently I think it became a trademark of Futurama that we would go for these emotional endings a couple of times a year. Just when you least expect it — WHAM! Your crying at a dumb cartoon.

I also want to put in a nod for "Reincarnation", the episode where Futurama was animated in 3 different styles. The animation (directed by Peter Avanzino) was stunning, but also we shot high on the writing... each of the three parts hinged at a key moment on something BEYOND impossible to portray in its own style of animation (eg, not just a rainbow in the black and white episode, but a rainbow with a NEW color). That wasn't easy to concoct. And one of the three segments was about the nobility of the search for scientific truth... (why were we cancelled again...?) I like elevating science when possible instead of just making it the villain responsible for genetically-engineered viruses and so on. At any rate, you wouldn't see that subject matter on another show.

On Hypnotoad:

Hypnotoad is a good example of a recurring phenomenon... a character we write in for one quick joke who we grow to love. In this case it was just to serve the plot point of Nibbler losing the pet show in the episode "The Day the Earth Stood Stupid". But later his mindless droning seemed to sum up something about TV in general and we kept bringing him back. He's also a writer favorite because it's surprisingly easy to write for a character who doesn't speak.

Other one-joke characters who I grew to love were Roberto, the criminal robot (programmed to commit crimes... why?) and Hedonismbot, whose name is pretty self-explanatory. These characters were given so much personality by the cast members (David Herman and Maurice LaMarche, respectively) that they suddenly seemed like more than we had planned when we heard them. So credit to our great cast. You can tell we didn't intend for some of these characters to come back because we didn't even try to make up good names for them. "Hedonismbot" is pretty lazy. But I guess it does the job.

---

See more posts by Adam Frucci

1 comments

A selection of webcam photos of Cleo, the financial dominatrix.

Being a financial dominatrix is a lot like being an accountant. Except for the fact that people masturbate over your penny-watching and you're more likely to work from in front of a webcam than behind a desk in a pantsuit.

The fetish of financial domination basically entails men (or "pay pigs," as they're known within the fi-dom world) transferring large sums of money to women over the internet. The nuances vary, but a relationship can stretch anywhere from a pay pig sending his dominatrix $30 a week to donating the vast majority of his earnings and having his dom take full control of all his finances. Which seems a little frivolous given the current economic climate, but I guess that's kind of the point.

I spoke to a pay pig who wanted to remain anonymous because he figured his family wouldn't be too happy to find out he'd been spending a bunch of money on an internet dominatrix. Which is perfectly understandable. When I asked him how he'd ended up as a pay pig, he told me, "It was always meant to be—I was born to serve beautiful goddesses like my mistress."

His answer wasn't much of a surprise—submissives generally worship their doms. That's the general idea of those kinds of relationships. But discovering the amount he spends a month was a little shocking: "I leave myself enough money to eat basic foods and pay my bills and everything else goes to her. Sometimes I’ll go hungry so that I can spend more on her. I am the manager of a large company, so this means that I spend a lot."

The pay pig I spoke to insisted he wasn't being exploited, and I believed him–it's not like someone was forcing him to find sexual gratification in subsisting on 7-Eleven corn dogs and water scavenged from his neighbor's birdbath. But I figured in the interest of getting a balanced look at the whole thing I should probably speak to someone on the other side of the deal, so I got in touch with Cleo Tantra, a financial dominatrix who I contacted on findoms.com, a kind of fi-dom Facebook, to learn a little more.

A little bit of impersonal financial domination.

VICE: Hi, Cleo. Can you give me a quick rundown of what the financial-domination fetish entails?
Cleo Tantra: To me, financial domination is about dominating someone financially. Sounds simple, right? It isn’t. There are so many different ways to play the game. There are the princesses and sugar babies out there who basically say, "I am pretty so give me money." Is that financial domination? They think so, but where is the domination? There are the boys who beg to be blackmailed—they provide all their information and the dom asks for money to keep it secret. Again, where is the domination?

What's real financial domination, then?
There are two ways I do it that I feel are true financial domination. The first is to know everything about my pet—how much he makes, how much he spends, and what he spends it on. I do a budget for him that he must follow exactly. I make sure his bills are paid first, but cut his food spending down by half because he can eat ramen noodles very cheap. I cut his "extras" spending to a quarter. After that, I look at the balance of the earnings and half goes into savings for him and half comes to me. He reports to me via email daily, details any purchases and makes requests for savings withdrawals. I control all of his spending.

What's the other way?
That's just a basic online BDSM relationship with financial perks thrown in. We speak daily via email or on the phone and build a real relationship. I give him various tasks: weight-loss goals if he’s chunky, embarrassing pictures, such as in drag, chastity, etc. He gives me gifts because he appreciates my domination. I penalize him financially for any failed tasks or if he pisses me off.

What do you think the appeal is for your "pets"?
There are two main types of people who enjoy this. One is the guy who craves being abused. He likes to be ridiculed or to feel used. Having someone take your money from you can be humiliating and make you suffer and struggle. The other type is the macho, dominating-in-real-life kind of man. He's stressed out from making business decisions, running a business, and being the one in charge all the time. He really gets off on being vulnerable once in a while and having someone else take charge. It’s like a vacation for him.

How much do slaves typically contribute to their mistresses?
That really depends. I’ve had pets send me $20 a week, which is what they normally spent on the takeout coffee that they gave up for me. Others send all their income after bills and groceries are bought. There are others—"drive-by subs," as I call them—who will send a new dom that strikes their fancy $200 and then never contact her again, though the last is more of a financial fetish than financial domination.

I've heard that some slaves "adopt" their mistresses household bills and pay them. Do you ever do that?
I've heard that as well, but I don't participate in it. Most slaves are turned off if they think the dom needs their money, and paying a bill for her may appear that way. Any and all money I receive is spent on frivolous items, which makes it more exciting for me and my pets.

Do you think the main appeal of financial domination to the dominatrixes is financial or sexual?
I think with most it's financial, though they'll say otherwise. I love the money, but it's also thrilling sexually, mentally, and even emotionally to have control over another person, whether money is involved or not.

Do you have any idea what the top financial dominatrixes are capable of earning?
I don't. Many don’t like to share this information due to tax purposes, and many lie about what they make to make themselves appear more desirable. I would guess from financial domination alone that they could earn a few thousand a month.

Do you ever meet any of your slaves, or is it all done over the internet?
I haven't met anyone in real life yet, though I have two subs who I will meet at some point in the future. Many of my pets are in different countries, which makes it more difficult, and others I haven't known for long enough yet. I'm open to real-life meetings, it just hasn’t worked out yet.

Have you seen any changes to the fetish, given the fact that half the world is a lot poorer than they used to be?
I honestly think it’s disappearing. The number of doms currently completely outnumbers the number of subs. Many girls find out about it and think they can post an advertisement stating how beautiful they are and demand money. It turns potential subs and slaves off and drives them away. Only the girls who truly treat this as an art and get enjoyment out of the interaction as well as the financial side—and those who realize that it isn’t just sitting on your ass collecting money—will continue to thrive.

Thanks, Cleo.

More stuff about fetishes:

Watch: World's Fattest Mom

Edgeplay Isn’t Your Grandmother’s BDSM Scene

Things I Learned at the London Sex Expo 2011

Eat more meat on a stick, for starters.

Every time you experience something wonderful, like a Big Gulp, don't be afraid to profess your patriotism.

Source: whatshouldbetchescallme.tumblr.com

Limit your vocabulary to words that are made in America.

Source: ronswansonposts.tumblr.com

Develop a love for all types of meats on sticks.

Cut out the bread, and stick to the basic food group: bacon.

Source: media1.break.com

Remember that you are a hunter, and the world is your buffet.

Source: dead-beat-summer.tumblr.com

---

View Entire List ›

The entire cast from the wonderful 1996 movie reunited this past weekend. My only question, was there chocolate cake?

Left to right, back row: One of the Million Dollar Sticky women, Brian Levinson (Michael Wormwood), Pam Ferris (Trunchbull), Jimmy Karz (Bruce Bogtrotter), and Leor Livneh Hackel (Julius Rottwinkle).

Left to right, front row: Jacqueline Steiger (Amanda Thripp), Rhea Pearlman (Mrs. Wormwood), Mara Wilson (Matilda Wormwood), Kiami Davael (Lavender), Sara Magdalin (played the four-year-old Matilda), Danny DeVito (Mr. Wormwood/Narrator), and Embeth Davidtz (Miss Honey).

Via: sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net

Via: reddit.com

A 6-minute breakdown of the EU.

CGPGrey | Previously: Bizarre Borders: Canada & The United States

 
Something you don’t see every day: An awesomely creative woman makes a prosthetic leg for herself out of LEGO pieces!

Uploader AmputeeOT writes a friendly warning to anyone considering doing this:

Someone in my research lab jokingly suggested I make a prosthetic leg out of legos.

Please don’t do this yourself, I don’t want you to fall and get hurt!

Sometimes, you just need to be silly.

 
With thanks to Kip Silverman!

• Esta noche, Ferran Adrià participará en la elección del primer MasterChef español.

Llegó el día de la final de MasterChef. Bueno, en realidad, el día ya pasó, pues la gran final está grabada desde hace semanas. Pero da igual, la magia de la televisión descubrirá esta noche quién es el ganador del premio del concurso: un curso de Le Cordon Bleu, la publicación de un libro de cocina, un trabajo como cocinero y 100.000 euros.

Fabián, Eva y Juan Manuel han llegado hasta el final del gastroshow de La 1, que se ha convertido en toda la sorpresa de la temporada, viendo crecer su audiencia cada semana y demostrando que los programas pueden mejorar tras ser testados por el público.

Y es que MasterChef empezó con críticas negativas que evidenciaban un forzado mal rollo del jurado que no iba a tono con la esencia del sano entretenimiento televisivo (y culinario) que la gente esperaba. De esta forma, los responsables del programa han sabido potenciar la empatía tanto de los concursantes como del propio jurado.

Hubo un antes y un después desde que se humanizó a los jueces con Pepe Rodríguez intentando reanimar un pollo, de lo crudo que estaba, y que había cocinado Noé. Estos momentos, ejemplifican el éxito de un programa que nos ha regalado instantes memorables, cocinados a fuego lento, que van desde la cacareada obsesión por las alcachofas de Maribel hasta el cambiazo de azúcar por sal de Eva elaborando una inquietante tarta tatín.

• La dinámica de la final.

En la primera eliminación, cada finalista deberá cocinar un plato para 25 personas. Será el momento de reencontrarse con los 12 aspirantes que han pasado por el programa que irán opinando…. Además, también estarán presentes sus familiares, de los que llevan apartados y aislados 3 meses en una casa al estilo de Gran Hermano. Eso sí, sin cámaras.

Los jueces tendrán que probar sus creaciones para decidir cuál de los 3 finalistas queda en tercera posición y se lleva el Certificado de Fundamentos de Cocina Española de Le Cordon Bleu Madrid para que pueda seguir desarrollando sus conocimientos culinarios.

A continuación, la que será prueba decisiva que determinará el ganador. Para tomar esta decisión, Pepe Rodríguez, Jordi Cruz y Samantha Vallejo-Nágera contarán con la ayuda de Ferran Adrià. Él probará y juzgará los menús elaborados por los dos mejores aspirantes de la noche.

Pese a haber sido invitado a todas las ediciones internacionales de MasterChef ,que se han realizado en 45 países, Ferrán Adrià ha escogido la española, como no podía ser de otra manera, para acompañar a los aspirantes y los jueces en un momento tan importante.

• El premio.

El mejor chef amateur de España se llevará 100.000 euros, publicará un libro de recetas y tendrá la oportunidad de seguir aprendiendo con el Grand Diplome, otorgado por la escuela de alta cocina Le Cordon Bleu Madrid, y trabajar en un restaurante de la cadena Bilbao-Berria.  Por su parte, el segundo clasificado cursará el Diploma de Cocina en la misma escuela y recibirá un contrato de trabajo en el complejo turístico Mayakobá de México.

• El acontecimiento.

El equipo de entretenimiento de TVE ha sabido crear un evento social con esta gala final y ha organizado una proyección simultánea a la emisión de La 1 en una sala de los cines Kinepolis de Madrid. En esta “premier” estarán los aspirantes, los tres miembros del jurado y la presentadora, Eva González. Será una experiencia colectiva, casi catártica, que es un acierto para acercar la televisión pública a la sociedad en un momento en que parece alejarse tanto del sentir ciudadano. Masterchef ha demostrado que TVE puede seguir haciendo televisión de primera línea, cómplice, televisión de hoy.

Y ADEMÁS…

‘MasterChef’, un éxito cocinado a fuego lento

¿Por qué los concursantes de ‘MasterChef están aislados en una casa?

Recetas ‘Con las manos en la masa’

Así son los míticos Eudios Buñuel y así puede ser su futuro

Seis programas que TVE no emitiría hoy

 

Si hay que hablar de orgasmos fingidos, y hay que hablar de orgasmos fingidos, debemos recordar la escena de Meg Ryan en Cuando Harry encontró a Sally: Billy Crystal está convencido de que las mujeres, al menos con él, no han fingido ningún orgasmo. Meg Ryan le dice que, como el resto de hombres, cree que nunca le ha pasado. Él está convencido de que notaría la diferencia. Entonces llega uno de los momentos más emblemáticos del cine, uno de los orgasmos más recordados de la historia. Ryan deja de comer y, en medio del bar, empieza a simular un orgasmo.

Los gemidos de Meg Ryan son propios de alguien que, para incredulidad de su compañero, no lo ha hecho por primera vez. Y probablemente no será la última. ¿Qué pasa? ¿Por qué la mujer necesita fingir un orgasmo? ¿Por quién lo hace? ¿Prefiere el hombre asumir que la mujer finge o asumir que hay veces que, mire usted, no se puede? ¿Por qué la mujer tiene necesidad de mentir? ¿Por qué el orgasmo fingido es a menudo, en cuanto a calidad sonora y respiratoria, mucho mejor que el verdadero? Lo que está claro es que, sea como sea, el hombre no se da cuenta, aunque crea, como Billy Crystal, que notaría la diferencia. No, no puede notar la diferencia porque parece menos real el verdadero, porque es más discreto. El doctor Morgentaler asegura que el hombre también finge orgasmos en favor del placer o el ego de sus parejas, aunque para ello necesite utilizar preservativo por motivos evidentes. En cualquier caso, la mujer es siempre la sospechosa, precisamente porque no hay evidencia: hay que creerse que ha conseguido llegar. Hay diferentes teorías en cuanto al motivo por el que se fingen los orgasmos, y algunas son opuestas. Por una parte, podría tratarse de mujeres que quieren hacer creer al hombre que están sexualmente satisfechas, para obtener a cambio un equilibro y una estabilidad en la pareja. Por otra parte, el hombre podría fingir el orgasmo, igual que la mujer, por no ofender el ego del otro. Ellas no quieren herir y ellos, que son socialmente considerados máquinas sexuales que no tienen problemas para llegar al clímax, ofenderían profundamente a la mujer: si es tan fácil que el hombre llegue al orgasmo, ¿por qué yo no lo consigo? En definitiva, se trata de un complejo de inferioridad, pero no propio, sino el complejo que le atribuimos al otro: lo hacemos por nuestras parejas para que no se frustren sexualmente.

Pero Meg Ryan no es la única que hace alarde de lo bien que finge un orgasmo. Verónica Forqué es prostituta en ¿Qué he hecho yo para merecer esto? y su cliente quiere que Carmen Maura esté presente para verlo todo. Pero lo único que ve Carmen Maura es cómo Forqué finge excelentemente un orgasmo. El hombre les asegura que es un semental y es capaz de darle placer a todas las mujeres, pero Verónica Forqué solo encuentra el momento idóneo para demostrar sus dotes de actriz, de mujer fingidora. Son muchas las escenas que nos ha dado el cine de mujeres que están aburridas mientras mantienen relaciones sexuales, incluso que son capaces de hacer otras cosas mientras se acuestan con alguien. La mujer está pensada para dar placer al hombre, en muchos aspectos de la vida, y cuando se trata de la cama no es diferente: si él quiere, habrá que hacerlo. El hombre queda ridiculizado creyéndose muy hombre, muy viril, mientras que la mujer queda retratada con gran frivolidad. El sexo no siempre está relacionado con el placer, sino con el ego, y de ahí vienen los orgasmos fingidos, las mujeres que están pensando en la compra del día siguiente mientras gimen escandalosamente, sin olvidarnos del posterior cigarro en el que él parece el Dios de la sexualidad y ella una mentirosa por piedad: la mujer se abre de piernas y finge como si le diera una palmadita en la espalda.

El caso contrario, o no tanto todavía, es un orgasmo radiofónico. Exactamente. En la película Private Parts. El locutor hace el amor con Robbin, una radioyente que confiesa despertarse todos los días pensando en él. Para solucionarlo, le da instrucciones de que suba los graves del altavoz y se siente encima, mientras su compañera de radio le dice que una mujer no se excita con algo así. Una mujer no se excita con algo así, pero puede tener un orgasmo comiendo una hamburguesa o limándose las uñas frente a Carmen Maura. El locutor provoca cosquilleos con su voz a través del micro y consigue darle un orgasmo a la mujer, que, por otra parte, no deja de ser otra actriz, a lo Forqué, que se frota con un bafle. ¿Nota usted la diferencia? Probablemente no lo note, Billy Crystal y otros no lo notarían, porque están acostumbrados a que la mayoría de orgasmos sean fingidos: no deberían extrañarse tanto, ellos también lo hacen. El hombre puede eyacular sin orgasmo o tener un orgasmo sin eyacular (por ejemplo, los prepúberes o adultos con medicación), pero la mujer no lo creería. Cómo no va a tener un orgasmo, cómo va a ir separado de la eyaculación.

Jane Fonda, en Barbarella, siente exactamente lo mismo que la mujer del altavoz, pero en una máquina creada para el placer de la mujer. Ahí dentro, Fonda retoza, abre los ojos y sin gritar ni gemir en exceso, tiene un orgasmo sin necesidad del hombre, como la radioyente. Por eso sabemos que no está fingiendo: la máquina no se va a ofender con ella. Los orgasmos cinematográficos mejor fingidos siempre son para demostrar algo: para esquivar al hombre, para no ofender su ego, o para hacerle ver que no son tan despiertos para detectar cuándo una mujer les está engañando. Normalmente el orgasmo fingido se da porque a la mujer no le apetece mantener relaciones sexuales pero accede, le permite al hombre que cumpla sus deseos, y se ofrece con desgana, como un objeto. Los hombres, en el mundo de los tópicos, siempre están por encima en la escala del deseo y las mujeres siempre se quejan. A la máquina de Barbarella no le importa si Jane Fonda tiene o no un orgasmo, si va a acabar quemando el aparato o si se va a quedar fría. La máquina no tiene sentimientos, con la máquina no tiene después que irse a dormir, y la máquina no le va a preguntar si es que ya no la desea o si hay otra persona. Jane Fonda no le va a tener que responder que está muy cansada y que no hay ningún problema, es que ha tenido un día duro, tampoco va a tener que explicarle que tiene demasiadas cosas en la cabeza y no puede concentrarse, ni va a decirle que tiene miedo de que el niño entre a la habitación y los pille. Está creada para dar placer, no para dar explicaciones ni motivos: no para reproducirse, no para intimar; para el placer exclusivamente.

Audrey Tautou, siendo Amélie, se pregunta cuántos orgasmos deben de estarse viviendo en aquel mismo momento en la ciudad, y nos ofrece un pequeño catálogo de gemidos y gritos. Woody Allen, en cambio, quiere dejarse de tonterías y lo que de verdad desea para el futuro es que el tabaco sea bueno para la salud y exista el Orgasmatrón, una máquina diseñada para que las parejas, como si fuera un ascensor, entren y obtengan placer de una manera limpia y tranquila, sin fingimientos, sin engaño. El equilibrio matrimonial está a menudo relacionado con la sexualidad, y ese es uno de los motivos por el que las mujeres reconocen fingir los orgasmos, y en menor medida también los hombres. El sexo siempre ha tenido que ver con la lujuria, la depravación y el pecado, así que antes el ciudadano común no se atrevía a experimentar con el sexo porque estaba prohibido; no había que fingir, porque nadie esperaba obtener placer de un pecado (excepto los que habían acabado con su propio tabú). La mujer no se veía obligada a fingir orgasmos porque se veía obligada a reproducirse. Pero en cuanto llegó la liberación sexual, a la mujer se le ofreció la posibilidad algo más, algo que el hombre ya practicaba: y como existía tanto desconocimiento y tanta torpeza, se adaptó al placer sexual fingiendo. Por increíble que nos parezca a las generaciones actuales, hay mujeres que no han sentido un orgasmo en su vida: primero porque no tenían información de cómo alcanzarlo, segundo porque al hombre nadie le pedía que proporcionara placer. O bien le parecía ofensivo que la mujer quisiera pasárselo estupendamente como él, o bien no la creía merecedora y acababa antes de tiempo. El sexo era el momento del hombre y no tenía por qué recrearse en el cuerpo de la mujer: bastante hacía con preñarla y darle lo que quería. La sociedad actual está mucho más preparada para el placer femenino, pero aun así la mujer se responsabiliza del ego del hombre fingiendo. ¿Hasta qué punto, hasta dónde son capaces de llegar para no dañar la imagen sexual de sus compañeros? Hasta que una mujer como Marilyn Monroe confiese a su psiquiatra que no tuvo nunca un orgasmo. La mujer más deseada murió sin correrse.

 
It has been said that everyone who bought a copy of The Velvet Underground & Nico went on to start a band. The same has been said about the attendees of the legendary Sex Pistols gig at the Manchester Lesser Free Trade Hall on June 4, 1976, which included future members of Joy Division/New Order, The Fall, A Certain Ratio, Simply Red, Buzzcocks/Magazine, Tony Wilson and producer Martin Hannett.

One punter who was not impressed, a then 17-year-old Steve Morrissey, who let his feelings be known in a letter to the editor of the NME. What an insufferable, supercilious brat he must’ve been! Turning his nose up at The Sex Pistols???

There’s an entire book about this concert and the seismic cultural repercussions it caused in it its wake, I Swear I Was There: The Gig That Changed The World by David Nolan and a TV doc with eyewitness accounts of this infamous gig:
 

 
Previously on Dangerous Minds:
‘Ramones are Rubbish’: Morrissey’s thoughts on the Ramones, 1976

Morrissey’s snide record reviews: Moz dumps on Cyndi Lauper, The Psychedelic Furs and XTC, 1984

Via Boing Boing /Letters of Note

Back in 2007, I decided to celebrate the 30th anniversary of punk rock's "breakout year" by doing a series on the best punk records of 1977. But I never finished the series. In the midst of a personal crisis, I abruptly "retired" from writing about music in November of 2007. The series probably got somewhere into the top ten before Now Wave Magazine went "off the air". It always left a bad taste in my mouth that I never finished the job. So now, six years later, I'm starting over. I'll begin with the LPs. It seems like most of these choices are kind of obvious, but it's always fun to decide who makes the cut and how to order my selections. Who have I placed at the top of punk rock's first graduating class? Let's find out!

10. Vibrators - Pure Mania
The question of whether not they were "real punks" will be eternally debated. My response would be, "Who the fuck cares?!" Fashion and politics come and go, but great music is eternal. Rooted in pub rock and stripped down to the essence of three-chord rock n' roll, Pure Mania helped to define the sound of '77 punk.

9. The Boys - self titled
With roots in glam rock and a shameless affection for bubblegum melodies, The Boys were founding fathers of pop-punk. Each of the band's first two albums is an all-time classic, although I slightly prefer the pure punk adrenaline of this landmark debut. I'm gonna be, gonna be sick on you!

8. Dead Boys- Young, Loud & Snotty
The title pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

7. Wire - Pink Flag
I think Wire has made a lot of great music over the years. But if I'm going to listen to Wire, it's going to be the minimalist punk brilliance of Pink Flag. This record re-invented '77 punk yet still epitomizes it.

6. Sex Pistols- Never Mind The Bollocks
So much has been made of this album in terms of musical influence and cultural impact. But sometimes people forget what a phenomenal rock n' roll record it is. The opening strains of "Holidays In The Sun" still give me chills. And for the record, "God Save The Queen" is my favorite punk rock song ever.

5. Saints - (I'm) Stranded
Inspired by The Stooges, MC5, et al, The Saints more or less "invented" punk rock simultaneously with The Ramones. Recorded cheaply and quickly, this scorching debut has all of the energy and power we equate with punk without comforming to any of its "rules" (several tracks are in the 4-5 minute range).

4. Damned- Damned Damned Damned
They'd later become known for their gothic and psychedelic imprints on the punk style, but I liked The Damned better when they just played raw, electrifying rock n' roll. Cranking up "Neat Neat Neat" and playing a mean air bass never stops being fun.

3. The Clash - self titled
London Calling is a probably the best Clash album. But when I feel like listening to The Clash, I usually crave the urgency and passion of songs like "White Riot", "London's Burning", and "Career Opportunities". The later U.S. reissue improved the product by swapping out a few tracks. But even in its original state, The Clash is one of the five greatest punk albums ever made and a true embodiment of why they're "the only band that matters".

2. Ramones - Rocket To Russia
I'm not saying it was a coin flip between this one and Leave Home, but it was pretty darn close.

1. Ramones- Leave Home
You'd think I'd have the more accessible Rocket To Russia ranked higher than Leave Home since I'm a "pop guy". But I'm a purist when it comes to The Ramones. I like the rougher edge of their first two albums. Those two LPs will never be topped by anyone in any genre of music. Why have aliens not taken over our planet? Because they heard The Ramones and had to accept the superiority of the human race.

Just missed the cut: The Jam - In The City, Johnny Thunders and the Heartbreakers - L.A.M.F., Eater-The Album

So there you go. When I talk about "'77 punk", I'm referencing music in the style of the above bands/records. I was only six years old in 1977, so it's not like I have any kind of nostalgic attachment to this era. But I will forever maintain that early punk rock is the greatest music ever made. If you don't own all of the above albums, it's time to go shopping!

-L.R.

You have 10 minutes to answer these 30 questions.

Last week, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a key provision in the law that mandated nine states with a history of racial discrimination, mostly in the South, to get federal permission before they could change their voter laws.

Below is an example of a "literacy test" given to black voters in Louisiana. As Slate points out, “There was little room for befuddlement. The test was to be taken in 10 minutes flat, and a single wrong answer meant a failing grade.”

Via: crmvet.org

Via: http://www.crmvet.org/index.htm

Via: crmvet.org

---

View Entire List ›

Via: slate.com

What will you find on a hilariously overconfident dude’s bookshelf?

Note: There are many types of bros: pick-up artist bros, Wall Street bros, Silicon Valley bros, libertarian bros, geek authenticity-police bros, nice bros, mean bros. What unites them is overconfidence.

Additional note: This is also just one overconfident dude's nonscientific mansplaination of what other overconfident dudes like to put on their bookshelves.

Via: Kevin TS Tang

As told by Sandra Bullock on Saturday’s edition of The Graham Norton Show .

Thanks Mike (from Spain)

 

Interacción vecinal

por Alba Ortiz

Paris Je T'aime - a short 5 minutes film by the Coen Brothers.

In Tuileries, a short film by Joel and Ethan Coen from the 2006 anthology, Paris Je T'Aime, Steve Buscemi plays a mild-mannered tourist caught completely out of his element. What transpires is a rather bizarre five-minute cultural lesson they won't teach you at Berlitz. via Open Culture

El sustantivo wasap (‘mensaje enviado por la aplicación de mensajería instantánea WhatsApp’), así como su verbo derivado wasapear (‘intercambiar mensajes por WhatsApp’), son adaptaciones adecuadas en español.

Con motivo de la nueva función de WhatsApp que permite borrar mensajes tras haberlos enviado, en los medios de comunicación pueden verse frases como «¿Arrepentido de un WhatsApp?» o «Tienes cinco minutos para borrar un WhatsApp enviado».

De acuerdo con la Ortografía de la lengua española, la letra w es apropiada para representar la secuencia /gu/, entre otras, en palabras extranjeras adaptadas al español (waterpolo y web, por ejemplo), criterio por tanto aplicable a wasap como españolización del nombre que se da a los mensajes enviados por WhatsApp.

En cambio, WhatsApp se escribe así, sin adaptar y con mayúscula inicial en la w y en la segunda a, si hace referencia al nombre propio de la aplicación.

Dado que en los dos ejemplos anteriores se está empleando WhatsApp para referirse a cada uno de los mensajes enviados, como nombre común, lo recomendable habría sido escribir «un wasap».

Si esta voz se pronuncia como palabra aguda, no se tildan ni el singular wasap ni el plural wasaps (ya que se trata de una palabra aguda terminada en grupo consonántico). También es muy frecuente su pronunciación llana y en este caso lo adecuado es poner tilde en la primera a: wásap/wásaps.

A partir del sustantivo wasap, es posible derivar el verbo wasapear, ya asentado, como en «¿Quieres promocionar tu negocio con una aplicación para wasapear?», sin necesidad de resaltarlo con cursiva ni comillas.

Por otra parte, aunque también pueden resultar admisibles las adaptaciones guasap, plural guasaps, y guasapear, al perderse la referencia a la marca original y percibirse como más coloquiales, se prefieren las formas con w.

 

Cats puking to techno music (SLYT). Exactly what it says on the tin.

Un portugués creó un santuario tras la salvación de sus hijos

• Armindo señala que alguna persona se curó tras visitar la ermita que irguió en Pardaces