I'm a rabid, crazed, hysterical, obsessed cricket fan.  This is a big time for cricket as the IPL moves closer to its elimination round.  So I've been chained to the TV, screaming and sighing as my teams are both amazing and sucking.  

But I became inspired to find porn involving athletes.  I could see the appeal as athletes seem superhuman in the things they could do, as well as exceptionally virile and masculine.  I did a search and, of course, I found something interesting:

Aimed at gay men with a fetish for medical exams, Jockphysical.com promises prostate exams, embarrassing erections, and massage therapy.  Boasting of now being "more medically invasive than ever before" they feature "'Urethral Sounding'" (yes, they put it in quotes).  The male models are also "real authentic, genuine athletes."  I admire the triple adjectives which assert that these are ACTUAL athletes.  

Athletes are given full medical-ish profiles with all physical details offered:

This is aimed at gay men, but I could see straight/bisexual women being aroused by this.  A form of BDSM, the patient in a medical exam is at the mercy of the doctor.  The doctor must be invasive, go into intimate areas that only lovers are usually allowed.  And the patient must be compliant.  

The fact that these are athletes becomes even more exciting: the focus of the athlete is their body, something they are completely in control over.  They must be in order to excel in their work.  Most people will never be able to have that kind of physical awareness.

In a medical exam, the athlete is there for as much scrutiny possible.  A doctor may touch any part of their body to see what is unusual (the muscles extremely toned, the legs very strong).  Inadvertent erections betray the athlete--it is something they are not physically in control over.  And the examining doctor has even more control, as their probings cause sexual excitement.

A last important detail for their gay audience is that all these athletes are assuredly straight.  Why is this necessary?  Because it only adds to the power of the doctor (and the audience of this examination becomes, by extension, the doctor).  It is the fantasy of the gay man being able to touch and arouse the straight man, a figure who is sexually off limits.  

The titles do say it all:

A Billionaire Dinosaur Forced Me Gay
Gay Blob Monster
Forced Gay By A Merman and His Friends...and on and on and on.

Whereas the typical erotica reader might find these novels (around 17 pages, actually, so "novel" is a loose term) absurd, mystifying, unintelligent, and, hardly, sexy.  

Perhaps they aren't sexy, but they are definitely brilliant.  Strangely, I don't have to read them to know they're brilliant.  The level of the writing skill needn't be great, and if it is terrible, all the better: it'll just make them funnier.

Because funny is the point.  They're funny and creative and ironic up the ass, pun happily intended.  They're grotesque conglomerations of myth and beasts as a send up of kink, fetishes and pop culture.  What is sexy gets glopped together into a festive, colorful, slick stew of lube and various bodily goos.  The titles themselves betray the author's ironic intentions, as Billionaire dinosaurs "forced me" gay.  

In a world where dinosaur erotica exists and people, seriously, can successfully masturbate to cartoon ponies, there's no reason to believe that a reader can whack off to irony.
 

This lovely article showed up in my Facebook feed the other day: A Handy Guide To Sex In The Middle Ages.  The article focuses on church edicts which prohibit certain sexual acts in the population, and accompanying penances. This is my favorite:

There are others, covering masturbation and women using foreign objects in their vaginas.  I prefer to look at these rules/laws as a indirect guide to what people in the middle ages were doing sexually.  After all, you don't make laws prohibiting things people aren't doing.

Using the above example, there was gay behavior.  There was bestiality (I'll avoid arguing over equating these two behaviors; that's a different blog post.)  

Women were crafting or finding objects to serve as phalluses.  There were blow jobs with swallowing.  There was masturbation, casual sex, and prostitution.  Sex within marriage (the only appropriate place for it) had restrictions, acceptable on certain days of the month and only in the missionary position.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say there was quite a lot of sex.  I'm also going to give the church the benefit of the doubt and say that there were more reasons for these restrictions other than church doctrine and ultra conservative beliefs.  

There are practical reasons for restricting sex:  syphilis is an enormous one.  There was no cure for syphilis and it killed thousands.  There are other sexually transmitted diseases such as herpes and gonorrhea.  And this controlled the population and rates of pregnancy.  At this time, too, women dying in childbirth was a real, constant threat.  

With all these doctrines in place, with specific behaviors having very specific punishments, and with the threat of disease and pregnancy, imagine how exciting sex would be.  How difficult it would be to find a safe spot to do it, and the high risk of being caught.  Forbidding sex can make some of the most exciting sex ever experienced.  Anyone who has committed adultery can attest to this.

Often I'll skip my way through Reddit using their random NSFW search link.  Sometimes I find subreddits I really wish I hadn't (pics of dead kids), but often I find things that are very educational.

Today I learned about the innie pussy.  Diagram provided:

Being a woman (yes, I promise I am), this surprised me: I didn't really know there was a difference.  

Being a bisexual woman, I felt stupid: I've had sex with numerous women.  How have I not noticed this?

Well, to be fair, when I was with those women, I wasn't thinking at all about comparing our bodies and discovering how remarkable female anatomy is.  All I cared about was fucking them and getting fucked by them.  Honestly, I don't remember anything specific about anyone, except how I felt with them.  

It is very possible that this is entirely because this is my thinking process.  Sometimes, especially when I'm excited, my vision narrows and all that I can focus on or remember is what I'm excited about.  Sex is a good example of this.  Sometimes details escape me, even ones that seem like they would be important.

Perhaps it has something to do with men having a stronger interest in images---that men remember pussies enough to create categories for them, so they may better remember their experiences and help them foster new fantasies.  

Do I prefer an innie or an outie?  I just like pussy.

Set in Pompeii during the years leading up to the eruption of Vesuvius, this full length novel follows the lives of prostitutes and politicians, gladiators and slaves, the elite an the nouveau riche. Their lives intertwine and the choices they make lead to the destruction of Pompeii.

Coming soon to Nook and Kindle.

Over the next week I have been given the chance to study in depth a man who I will refer to as "Dave".  This study will occur through a series of interviews occurring over Kik.  Dave has been given permission to masturbate when he has the urge, but he must always be honest when he does.  It is important to establish that what he finds sexually stimulating and what brings him to climax: no matter how personally humiliating or shocking it may be.

Below is a summary of our conversation:

I questioned the subject about his sexual attraction toward men.  Had he ever masturbated to thoughts of other men.  He admitted that his "girlfriend" made him touch himself to a picture of his husband's cock.  Further questioning revealed that he would allow her husband to penetrate him orally and anally if she wished.  He was hesitant to admit that he feels inferior to him.

This, of course, led me to asking about his "girlfriend" who happens to have a "husband".  This "girlfriend" in fact lives in Ohio, and he has never had sexual intercourse of any kind.  He apparently has no history of becoming emotionally involved with women in established relationships.  I assume this is misdirection.  

During our conversation, Dave made no statements about other women he has had sexual intercourse with, though he maintained he finds women sexually attractive.  At this point, I sincerely doubt he has any significant feelings for women.  What he assumes are sexual feelings are most likely misinterpretations.  

He responded to me very subserviently, allowing me to mock him.  I suspect he sees women only as figures to dominate and punish him, and "force" him to explore his homosexual feelings which, on his own, he is terrified to confront.