Welcome to NSFW Lesbosexy Sunday!
+ There is a new piece of lesbian erotica on Sugarbutch, featuring spanking, strap-on sex, and a striptease, that you should read immediately:
“She blushes a little, looks down with a half-smile. She can tell I’m watching her. Her hands flutter the menu closed and she releases them to her lap. I slide my hand over to her thigh. She jumps.
‘Relax,’ I say, close to her ear. ‘No one can see.’
‘How do you know,’ she shoots back quietly.
‘The tablecloth,’ I finger the satin fabric of her skirt, not quite feeling her stockings through the crinoline. My shoulders are starting to ache, ready to take her, and I shift toward her again. I reach for the hem of her dress and can just barely work my hand under it without making it look like I’m obviously reaching. Her stockings are smooth. Her legs are crossed. She uncrosses them, stockings rubbing together briefly, and parts her knees just a little. I can feel her breath on my cheek and her eyelids are getting heavy. I finger the edge of her simple white panties, then move my fingers under the elastic edge and she’s wet. I can feel it.”
+ ONCE AGAIN, a scientist is trying to tell us that the G-Spot isn’t real. I’m not sure who keeps investing in these studies but REALLY GUYS, REALLY?
A Yale scientist has suggested that the G-spot isn’t real. In a January 12 issue of the Journal of Sexual Medicine, urologist Amichai Kilchevsky published a study that examined the results of a search across published works for words including G-spot, Grafenberg spot, female orgasm, and female erogenous zone. Her conclusions were not promising:
“‘Objective measures have failed to provide strong and consistent evidence for the existence of an anatomical site that could be related to the famed G-spot,’ Kilchevsky wrote.
Such objective measures, the study notes, have included everything from ‘digital stimulation’ to MRI scans over the past decade. Kilchevsky notes that ‘modern investigative techniques’ may provide more evidence in the future. The study claims the majority of women believe in the G-spot, which Kilchevsky said is thanks to a myth perpetuated by the porn industry and the public media.”
There you go folks. I don’t know what you’ve experienced or where you’ve been in life, but clearly that scientific study is far more relevant than all that.
+ According to Collectors Weekly, everything you know about the corset is more or less incorrect. No one walked around with 13-inch waists (except in fetish fiction), corsets didn’t re-shape anyone’s organs or cause cancer, and women wore corsets to be fashionable and feel properly dressed. Valerie Steele, director and curator at The Museum at the Fashion Institute of Technology, says:
“Most people today think corsets were extremely dangerous and caused all kinds of health problems, from cancer to scoliosis. And that’s quite inaccurate. Most of the diseases that have been credited to corsets, in fact, had other causes. Corsets did not cause scoliosis, the crushing of the liver, cancer, or tuberculosis. It doesn’t mean that corsets were without any health problems, but it does mean that most modern people are wildly naive in believing the most absurd antiquated medical accusations about corsetry.
For example, the idea of the misshapen liver seems to be a mistake based on the fact that there is a lot of variation in the shape of livers. When doctors did autopsies, they would see these weird-looking livers and they’d go, ‘That was caused by the corset.’”
+ The experiene of asexuality is also a topic in the BBC this week:
“‘[Aromantic asexuals] don’t have any romantic attractions, so in many cases they don’t want to be touched, they don’t want any physical intimacy,’ says [sociologist Mark] Carrigan.
‘[Romantic asexuals] don’t experience sexual attraction, but they do experience romantic attraction. So they will look at someone and they won’t respond sexually to them, but they might want to get closer to them, to find out more about them, to share things with them.’”
+ The US Supreme Court has been asked to rule on nudity on TV. The case relates to a 2003 broadcast of an episode of NYPD Blue, which features the sides of Charlotte Ross’s butt and breasts. In 2011, the case was decided in favour of ABC, but the FCC appealed. According to Slate:
“Waxman patiently explains to the rapt justices that ABC was never sanctioned for over a dozen NYPD Blue episodes over nine seasons that included bare buttocks. Not until the last one. Arbitrary, bad FCC. Then, he raises his arms, Moses-like, to the glorious friezes that surround the interior of the ceremonial courtroom. And then Waxman points to one sculpted classical stone lawgiver after another as he guides the justices through the fleeting bottoms that pervade their lofty spaces: “There’s a bare buttock there, and there’s a bare buttock here,” he marvels. “And there may be more that I hadn’t seen. But frankly, I had never focused on it before.” To which Justice Antonin Scalia grits out, “Me neither,” while all of the justices gape up at the walls above them, like bemused Muppets on Veterinarian Hospital.
That’s right…at the highest court in the land, Seth Waxman dropped the butt-bomb.”
+ This week in pubic hair: Now you, too, can get a bikini wax and then pay $225 for a neon-coloured merkin made of fox fur for some reason! Gawker says the result looks like nightmare porno from the mind of Dr. Seuss. I agree.
+ The Lingerie Bowl is getting away from girls in lingerie who exist and moving towards girls in lingerie playing a sport:
Disclaimer: All of the photographs on NSFW Sundays are taken from various tumblrs and do not belong to us. All are linked and credited to the best of our abilities in hopes of attracting more traffic to the tumblrs and photographers who have blessed us with this imagery. The inclusion of a photograph here should not be interpreted as an assertion of the model’s gender identity or sexual orientation. If there is a photo included here that belongs to you and you want it removed, please email our tech director at cee [at] autostraddle dot com and it will be removed promptly, no questions asked.
