Category Archives: Sex

This tends toward the academic rather than the erotic. But not entirely.

There’s a moral here

Posted on by

From the New York Post (H/T @michellemalkin):

The wild night began Saturday in a tavern in College Point, Queens, where boat owner Craig Gallo, 51, James Benenato, 60, and Mary Ann Belson, also 60, began chatting between drinks, another source said.

Neither of the two men had met Belson before.

Gallo, who lives in New Jersey and works for a financial company on Long Island, invited them aboard for a moonlight cruise. And before very long, the boat was rocking.

The joyride ended abruptly at the end of Runway 22, where the boat got impaled on a lighting stanchion.

…

Before the wreck, “a consensual three-way sex endeavor was going on,’’ the source added.

“There’s a moral here: If you’re feeling amorous aboard a boat, I suggest you drop your anchor before you drop your pants.’’

I don’t have a boat but perhaps this is news you can use.

On sex offender registries

Posted on by

Interesting:

California’s registry isn’t practical. Amanda Agan, a postdoctoral fellow in economics at Princeton studied sex offender registries at The University of Chicago. She explained her findings to NPR’s On the Media in 2011. She compared multiple studies, across multiple types of registries, including ones like California’s, and found that when the information is public, the pattern of recidivism (which means committing a crime again) was discouraging.

When they were in a public registry there was “a slight increase in how much they recidivated,” although “a slight deterrent effect for first-time offenders. But as the registry size grows, it seems like that recidivism effects swamps the first-time registrant effect. And so, we get kind of an overall increase in sex crimes.” Are you getting this? Sex crimes increased.

Again we find that if the government gets involved in preventive measures they make things worse.

Mixed feelings

Posted on by

I approve of the end result but I wish we had got there via the legislature rather than the courts:

A federal judge has issued an injunction Tuesday blocking enforcement of Idaho’s ban on same-sex marriage, saying it is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Magistrate Candy Dale issued the ruling in the case of four same-sex couples who challenged the constitutionality of Idaho’s marriage laws, which voters approved as an amendment to the state constitution in 2006.

In her decision, Dale wrote that Idaho’s laws barring same-sex marriage unconstitutionally deny gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry.

I see marriage law as being in the domain of the state legislatures. I haven’t read the court decisions but it would seem to be a stretch to find a fundamental right for same sex couples to marry in the U.S. Constitution, common law, or natural law and yet there be some question about the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms being protected.

Quote of the day—Moms Demand Action

Posted on by

Moms Demand Action supports the 2nd Amendment, but we believe common-sense solutions can help decrease the escalating epidemic of gun violence that kills too many of our children and loved ones every day. Whether the gun violence happens in urban Chicago, suburban Virginia, or rural Texas, we must act now on new and stronger gun laws and policies to protect our children.

Moms Demand Action
Web page, as of April 28, 2014
[I find it very telling that if they enumerate what they think are “common-sense solutions” they don’t make them easy to find on their web site. I couldn’t find them. If they really had solutions don’t you think they would announce them all to the world? What this means to me is they are running an emotional appeal, as they have already admitted, and will push whatever restrictive law they believe has a chance of passing. Facts and logic aren’t their tools in trade.

From reading their press releases and get the facts web pages it appears that for starters they want to stop public carry, ban modern sporting rifles, ban standard capacity magazines, and eliminate “stand your ground laws”. And if they were successful doing that you can be sure they would find a lot more “common-sense” restrictions they support.

I have to conclude Moms Demand Action demands are mostly hysteria and wonder if the traditional cure for it wouldn’t bring us all some relief.—Joe]

We have interesting friends

Posted on by

Some friends of ours are leaving the area for a year or two and we recently said goodbye to them. We had only met them a few months ago but really liked them. They are very smart, happy, high energy people. When we went on the cruise in the Bahamas last month we invited them to go with us. There was no one else we even considered.

They didn’t go. They said they really tried to make it work but just couldn’t. The fact that it was a Disney Cruise did not seem to be an issue.

In my personal life I keep this blog in the background and don’t bring it up unless I think they are going to be okay with it. I hadn’t mentioned it to them until this last meeting. I explained it was a little controversial and could bother some people.

It turns out they have blogs that are “interesting” too.

NOT safe for work.

Blissfully Open and Compersive Times.

We have interesting friends.

Quote of the day—Glen Reynolds

Posted on by

Are there any TV shows where the male hosts all chortle about their masturbation methods?

Glenn Reynolds
February 19, 2014
THINGS YOU MISS BY NOT WATCHING THE VIEW:
[Probably not and I don’t really care. Part of the reason is probably because of an anti-men agenda of the media. And the other part is probably because men don’t have the capacity to enjoy orgasms at a rate that requires electric motors powered from 117V household mains to keep up with them.

But it is interesting that talk about sex in the mainstream media appears to be becoming more acceptable.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

To a certain extent guns are like sex. Once someone becomes sexually active they seldom voluntarily become asexual let alone anti-sexual. And so it is with people who learn to use guns in a safe and supportive environment.

Many anti-gun people are proud they have never fired a gun and vow to never shoot one. “Guns only have one purpose!”, they insist. They wear their ignorance with pride and yet demand they should legislate the rules of ownership. And so it is in some social circles in regards to sexual activities.

But most people would laugh and, at their most charitable, say, “How cute!” if monks who had taken vows of celibacy were demanding laws which regulated sexual behavior between consenting adults. “No one needs sex more than once a month!”, they might demand.

And once such people gained control government registration of each sexual union would be “just common sense” to reduce the transmission of sexual diseases. Sympathetic courts would rule that government had an interest in protecting the safety of the citizens and the registration law, no matter how unlikely to be complied with, it has a rational basis and hence overrides the non-enumerated constitutional right to privacy.

And of course many gun control advocates really are nothing but Puritans afraid someone somewhere is having fun.

That was a first

Posted on by

This morning Barb and I did some errands together. One of these was for me to get a dress shirt for a party are attending tonight. While out I got a call from a friend with a well deserved nickname of “Brazen E.” which went something like the following. It was a real “first” for me.

Joe: Hello E.

E: Hi! What are you doing? Are you with your family in Idaho?

J: No. I got back last night. I’m in a dressing room at J.C. Penney’s. What about you?

E: We had a nice Christmas. I’m in a room with my daughter and can’t say a whole lot but I’m feeling pretty hormonal. I got permission from my husband and you are the first person I thought of.

J: Ahhh… Oh! So you are looking for some “benefits” from a friend?

E: Exactly! So, are you available?

J: Uhhh… [How do you say, “No” to someone who has the courage to ask for, and gets, permission from their husband to come play with you for a few hours?]

I’ll talk to Barb about it but we are pretty busy today and we are going to a party tonight. Maybe you could find someone at the party tonight. Would you like to go with us?

E: No. I don’t think so. Let me know if you change your mind.

J: I’m pretty sure it’s not going to work out. If you have another opportunity you should take it rather than waiting for me to call back.

E: Yeah. I already tried one, but he said he would rather sleep.

J: That was your husband?

E: Yes.

J: I see. Okay. Well good luck finding someone!

As I expected Barb did not think it was a good use of my time this afternoon.

More on Markley’s law

Posted on by

PETA is now promoting the idea that eating chicken will result in a small penis and other problems.

Well sure– If the idea that animals are essentially equal to humans doesn’t stop us from eating animals, then we might as well take the penis angle, because apparently people care more about penises (and sex) than practically anything else. It’s bound to get a few more, uh, members.

This is part of a long term trend. Leftists used to attack people they don’t like by calling us “fags” or “queers” but since they now have to pretend that they’re promoting the rights of homosexuals, they have to turn to other methods of distraction. Hence Markley’s law, and the recent PETA story is part of the same trend of using sex as a cultural/political lever.

A common phrase used back in the 1960s and early ’70s (the Vietnam war period) was “Girls say yes to guys who say no”. It’s an appeal to young, horny men, telling them straight up that they’ll get laid more if they at least pretend to help support the Progressives and the communists.

It’s a common theme among communists, to get the vulnerable young people on board, and sex is a powerful lure. Charles Manson used young women as bait to sucker young males into the group, and Sun Myung Moon, Jim Jones, the Heavens Gate Cult and others in a long line of socialist predators (but I repeat myself) followed very similar tactics. Islamists, we are told, will be treated to a harem of dozens of virgins if they die in the great and glorious jihad (and Allah will be super happy about your killing people too, but seriously; virgins!). They could just as well promote a new scientific study which finds that reading American freedom blogs will result in sexual dysfunction, and so the 72 virgins in heaven might go unsatisfied, and we wouldn’t want THAT to happen would we? If they haven’t done it already, they will.

Nothing changes. PETA has just put a slightly different twist on it, but their new spin has a lot of precedent. It is a good one though, as the left has also been trying to make us fear our food, our water, our air, and our neighbors, and this gimmick hits on at least two fronts.

And so I say to PETA; Good one, guys! Right on! You’re in good company. Keep up the good work. You’re completely insane, sure, but you’re giving it the old college try, you’re learning from your predecessors, and that deserves some respect.

Parenthetically; if animals raised for slaughter are as good and have rights the same as people, then people are no better and have no more rights than animals raised for slaughter, which is the whole point of organizations like PETA even if most of their members are clueless kids just trying to get laid. Remember it.

Quote of the day—Billll

Posted on by

Luring her out to the range to shoot your EBR is all well and good, but when it transpires that you have no ammo due to the national shortage, it begins to look like the old dodge of “running out of gas” at inspiration point.

Billll
August 27, 2013
Comment to Quote of the day—Amber Callipo
[I’ve “lured” women to the range with EBRs on many occasions. But in no case was there a sexual element present on my part that wasn’t established prior to the invitation to the range. I just don’t feel the connection between guns and sex like some people do and tend to be oblivious. That is until the woman makes her intentions clear that, at least for her, there is a connection.

Your mileage may vary.—Joe]

You can’t make this stuff up

Posted on by

All I know for certain about this person is they are ignorant, an Android user, and Sitemeter captured their visit to my blog. My hope is that those vectors are orthogonal. Their entry page to my blog is here.

Check out the search phrase, “what is the red spot indicates whether a man is virgin r not”:

Domain Name   (Unknown) 
IP Address   101.223.172.# (Unknown Organization)
ISP   Unknown ISP
Location  
Continent  : Unknown
Country  : Unknown
Lat/Long  : unknown
Language   English en
Operating System   Linux Unknown
Browser   Safari 1.3 Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.6; en-gb; GT-S5360 Build/GINGERBREAD) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1
Javascript   version 1.5
Monitor  
Resolution  :  320 x 401
Color Depth  :  32 bits
Time of Visit   Aug 6 2013 7:48:46 am
Last Page View   Aug 6 2013 7:48:46 am
Visit Length   0 seconds
Page Views   1
Referring URL   http://www.google.co…in r not&v=133247963
Search Engine   google.co.in
Search Words   what is the red spot indicates whether a man is virgin r not
Visit Entry Page   http://blog.joehuffm…ased-virginity-test/
Visit Exit Page   http://blog.joehuffm…ased-virginity-test/
Out Click    
Time Zone   UTC-1:00
Visitor’s Time   Aug 6 2013 2:48:46 pm
Visit Number   1,738,272

Looking younger

Posted on by

More support for Dr. Joe’s cure for everything:

Dr. David Weeks, a British consultant clinical psychologist and former head of old age psychology at the Royal Edinburgh Hospital, made us blush with his research that claims regular sex can make you look younger. In a new study, Dr. Weeks found that older men and women with an active sex life appeared five to seven years younger than their actual age.

Following the links a bit we arrive at this:

The 59-year-old will tell a British Psychological Society conference today about his research, where he asked men and women questions about their sex lives. He found those who looked younger than their age claimed to have sex an average 50 per cent more – in the 40-to-50 age group equating to three times a week rather than twice.

I found no mention of results similar to that found by my students as to what happens when the frequency is increased to once or more per day. These researchers really need to keep up.

Posted in Sex

Bra stories

Posted on by

Last night Barb L and I were hanging out with a bunch of friends. The woman who, a few months ago, reported breast enlargement after frequent “Dr. Joe’s Cure for Everything” treatments was there. She was telling all her friends, “See! Look at this! I went from an ‘A’ cup to a ‘C’!” “And”, she continued, pointing to her boyfriend, “It’s all because of him!” At first people thought he had paid for a boob job. Nope; It was the continuing application of the treatments advocated by Dr. Joe.

Apparently five minutes of continuous orgasms once a day (she claims, “I didn’t even know that was possible!”) for a few months stimulates enough hormones to dramatically affect breast size. She says she is continuing the treatments and is increasing the frequency of treatments to twice a day. She went on to say, perhaps jokingly, that she anticipates another increase of two cup sizes in a few more months.

Since she gives Dr. Joe partial credit I asked for pictures. This evening I received this picture:

V__03F6

Yeah. Not quite what I was hoping for either.

Entirely by coincidence I stumbled across this blog post yesterday. She references Dressed To Kill: The Link between Breast Cancer and Bras.

She claims:

  • Women who do not wear bras (or rarely ever) have a risk of 1 in 168 chance of developing breast cancer.
  • Women who wear a bra less than 12 hours a day have a 1 in 152 chance of developing breast cancer.
  • Women who wear a bra more than 12 hours a day, but not to sleep have a 1 in 7 chance of developing breast cancer.
  • Women who wear a bra 24 hours a day have a 3 in 4 chance of developing breast cancer.

And of course there are the obvious conclusions that a guy like me would love to endorse but further research on my part turns up this information:

The book’s claim that bras cause breast cancer has been dismissed by the medical and scientific communities; the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the National Institutes of Health have all concluded that there is no link between bra use and breast cancer.

Heavy sigh. I’m probably too honest. I’ve been accused of that before.

Quote of the day—J

Posted on by

Now I want a Windows phone. You’ve done what the marketing department at Microsoft could not.

J
June 12, 2013
[This was in response to my post about “shipping” my exterior ballistics app for Windows Phone.

That’s pretty pleasing because one of the things that weighs heavy on my mind is that, as Barb L., reminded me the night before I submitted the app is that, “This is for people that are really into long range shooting and own a Windows Phone. That’s a pretty small market.”

Totally off topic. I don’t know who ‘J’ is in this context but my first thought was the author of this book. I’m pretty sure the author of that book wouldn’t use this gravatar so I can rule her out.

I remember Larry H. giving me copy of that book when he was finished with it. I was sophomore in high school at the time it opened my eyes about some things. Then my dad found it tucked behind some insulation in the attic and took it away.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tim Wadsworth

Posted on by

There’s an overall increase in sense of well-being that comes with engaging in sex more frequently, but there’s also this relative aspect to it. Having more sex makes us happy, but thinking we are having more sex than other people makes us even happier.

Tim Wadsworth
April 2013
Keeping up with the Joneses? Having more sex than your friends makes you happier, study finds
[Well duh!

I just hope no tax money was used to do his study. But it's difficult to imagine any private investors sponsoring such a thing so it probably many taken at the point of a gun.

There is in interesting angle about this. People are made happy if they are better off than their neighbors. Or, put another way, people are less happy if their neighbors are better off than them. The progressives/communists prey upon this unhappiness and offer to bring the haves down to the level of the have-nots.

So when the communists get their way and everyone has equal material possessions and people are still not equally happy because of disparate quality or quantity of sex what will they advocate for then? Will people with super model appearances be required to "share" with the "less fortunate"?—Joe]