Flambe’s blog

For some time, there have been a few espresso stands that use women in bikinis as a way to entice customers to visit.

I've heard of one in Maine, and there are several near Seattle.

These caused quite an uproar from the citizens in the area when they first opened. In my view, I thought it was a totally reasonable way to attract customers. What's wrong with women in bikinis? The whole thing seemed way overblown.

Unfortunately, it turns out that a few of the women working at one of the espresso stands did some things that have cast a pall over every bikini barista: they took it too far. Allegedly, some of the women would, for a fee, strip naked while preparing drinks for customers, or allow customers to touch them while they were naked. Unfortunately, this is defined as 'prostitution' in the city of Everett where this happened, so the headline reads "Baristas accused of espress stand prostitution," which makes it sound much worse than it really was, even though it was pretty bad.

You had a good thing going, and wasn't it enough just to piss off those silly conservatives who blanche at the thought of a beautiful, scantily-clad woman serving coffee? Now you've ruined it by crossing the line and actually fulfilling their worst fears. This is a step back that undoes all the progress you've made.

I feel bad for you, being accused of prostitution is one of those things that, like any sex crime, stays on your record for life and will make getting jobs difficult. It seems a bit severe to me, but the damage is done. I don't think bikini espresso stands have a future now (at least, not for a long time). You screwed up, and now it's too late.

FWIW, I never went to one of them. I never saw one of them, but I supported them. Until now. Silly baristas.

There's a lot of debate about circumcision. Just taking a quick look around, I read one article that said discusses how circumcised men are at a lower risk for STDs, but another on the same site talks about circumcision can lead to a higher risk of STD.

Ok, never mind the STD risk. What about the fact that you're mutilating a man's body for reasons which have been lost in the mists of time? Why is it ok to circumcise a boy, but female circumcision (especially in Africa) is treated with upmost contempt and disgust by the West?

Ok never mind the ethics. Which looks better? I am reminded of that Seinfeld episode where Elaine says that circumcised penises just aren't that fun to play with. Most of the women I've ever spoken to on the topic agree - it's better when it's circumcised.

But never mind looks, which way feels better? Is cutting skin off the most sensitive part of a man's penis really the right way to highten pleasure? I've never read a before & after report from anyone, but I imagine that's what we'd need to settle this debate. Imagine an uncircumcised man who, after years of healthy sexual relations, gets circumcised, then goes out and has healthy sexual relations for years again, and then finally writes about it in a way that answers the question. Volunteers anyone?

It can't be me, I didn't get a choice, by the time I discovered my penis, my foreskin was already gone.

So I ask you as lovers, parents, and friends, what do you think? Is one or the other more fun or more erotic? Does an uncircumcised penis turn you off? Those of you who are parents, which did you choose, and why?

Helping hand

For those of you not in my neighborhood or circle of friends here on Vox, you're limited to a very few set of posts - a handful - maybe 10? Normally I try and post at least once a week, sometimes more often, sometimes less, but if you'd like to see more of the conversations & pictures, and if you'd like to partake in the comments and discussion, just ask to join my neighborhood!

I thought of Etsy and a folksy, quaint little crafting site. Who knew that you could get things like pendants made to resemble your vulva? It's not made from molds, rather, from a description (or if you prefer, pictures of) your vagina. The artist even has some ready-made pendants in case she has one that already looks like you!

Get yours (and learn more about them) here: http://www.etsy.com/view_listing.php?listing_id=24652872

I was perusing my host of daily web sites when I ran across this story, entitled "Americans aren't explicit when defining sex." The article doesn't try to define sex (it just talks about sex in a social context), but I bet that most people have a looser definition of sex when applied to the things they do, and a stricter definition when applied to the things their partner does. ("But honey, we didn't have sex! I just felt her up a little!" vs. "What!?!? You touched his cock!?!?")

It got me thinking: do we on this blog, who are probably a little more open-minded about sex than the average person, have a different definition of sex than everyone else?

I've heard some interesting definitions of sex before: everything from "any part of one person touching any part of another," to the standard "blowjobs don't count as sex."

I'm not sure I have a definition, but I have a litmus test: would you be ok with your partner/spouse doing something with another person? If you say no to a specific act, then you can probably define that as sex. For instance, I'm ok if my wife kisses a friend on the mouth. No big deal. But french kissing crosses a line. French kissing is too personal. To those people who say "blowjobs aren't sex," I challenge, "Ok, so you're ok if your wife gives blowjobs to someone else at this table?" And of course the person typically immediately changes their mind.

So do you have a specific definition for what is sex, or do you use litmus tests like I do? And is the reason most Americans aren't explicit about defining sex simply a way that they can blur the lines to their advantage? Or is it something else?

Remember way back when I said "Your kink is ok?" That was a phrase told to me years ago by and old friend, and I used the word 'kink' to mean any sort of mild sexual interest in a particular thing/ or act, and a fetish as a kink gone too far.

Well, Playboy has come along and helped out yet again*. In the most recent issue (July/August '09), there's a particular letter to the editor where the writer is worried about his foot fetish. They set him straight, and I'm glad to say that I learned something new:

"A fetish is when you can't get aroused by anything but the singular focus of your obsession. Your have what we call SSI, or Specialized Sexual Interest, which is much more fun. (Developing three or more SSIs can lead to SSIS, or Specialized Sexual Interest Syndrome)."

So I guess instead of YKIOK, it's YSSIIOK. And I may have SSIS, although I don't consider it a problem. And see? I do read the articles.

* - previously (on the old blog), Playboy helped by defining the word 'Unicorn,' but some of our current readers may not have known that.

I was sad to see that David Carradine died a few days ago. I was sadder still to see that he committed suicide; he didn't seem like the kind of person who'd do that, and at the age of 73 no less!?

Of course it all took a turn for the strange when it was released that his "body was found in a hotel closet in the Thai capital with a rope tied to his neck, wrist and genitals."

So he, like Michael Hutchence, is now a high-profile victim of autoerotic asphyxiation gone wrong. I don't want to seem to make light of his death, but what a way to go (he died doing what he loved?).

I have to ask if it's really worth it. I mean, is the orgasm you get from this really that great? I don't know about you, but my orgasms seem pretty damn good by themselves and I can't imagine feeling like I would have to do more, much less put my head in a noose and pray I don't die every time I jerk off. In fact, nothing is going to make my erection disappear faster than the threat of death.

I guess this is one of those kinks that I just don't understand.

This reminds me of a news story I saw a year or so ago: a man had died while doing the same thing and his insurance company denied his life insurance claim because they considered his death a suicide. His wife took the case to court and ultimately, the judge sided with the wife, saying because the man had tried autoerotic asphyxiation several times before, it was reasonable to assume that the man did not think it would kill him - in other words, the death was an accident, not a suicide. The woman got the insurance money.

[Photo note: I like to include pictures that are reasonably topical to the post, but I was not going to look for 'autoerotic asphyxiation' images on Google. Instead I decided to go with a beautiful redheaded woman with nice breasts. Who's very much alive. And may or may not be masturbating.]

So part of my exploration of sexuality included buying a variety of 'classic' porn movies. I have in my collection DVDs of Deep Throat and Debbie Does Dallas. One movie I picked up was Caligula. When I went to purchase the movie, I found two options: the original theatrical version, and the unrated version. Of course the unrated version sounded more tantalizing, so that's what I got.

As it turns out, I made a poor choice. If you haven't seen Caligula, let me say that it is a brutal and shocking movie. There is lots of sex & (male and female) nudity in it. The sex is often explicit. I will say it to be clear: this is not an erotic movie. You do not want to have sex with anyone after watching this movie. This is not a movie you watch with your loved one to get in the mood.

In the end, I enjoyed the movie in as much as it's a fascinating thing to see - once. It's worth seeing for some of the amazing things they bring to the big screen. Really, how many movies have fisting & beheadings in them?

But I said I made a mistake by purchasing the unrated version, and here's why. Apparently Larry Flynt of Penthouse fame purchased the rights to this movie. He decided to 'up' the porn factor by splicing in a couple of sex scenes. These scenes are literally inserted as random scenes during the movie. They are usually explicit lesbian love scenes. They add absolutely nothing to the movie itself. They're shot with different actors who don't appear in the movie. They have no plot, no dialogue, no point. They disrupt the flow of the movie, and the new scenes aren't even hot.

So, if you're going to watch the movie, then do yourself a favor and skip the butchered unrated version. Go for the original theatrical version. Looking at Amazon.com, I see a variety of versions are now available (including one in blu-ray!), but I can't really tell which are based on the unrated version and which are the original theatrical version - so be sure to do your research if your'e going to buy.

I will sum up by saying I don't think Caligula is a great movie - it's just ok, but it is shocking and provocative and has some truly memorable scenes that I still remember today (kind of like how a couple of scenes in The Ring stick with you). Like some of the other movies in my collection (like Deep Throat), it's worth seeing once just so you can see what everyone was talking about - even if you'll never see it again.

Hot on the heels of my Am I different post, The Stranger released the results from their 2009 sex survey (which I did not know about, and did not submit answers for). In any case, it's fascinating reading to see what people have done, what people want to do, and what they like. It should give you a rough sexual barometer so you can figure out where you are on the scale from Prude to Pervert!

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/2009-sex-survey-results/Content?oid=1488073

Just got this sent to me: http://seattleerotic.org/

If you're in Seattle the first few days of May, check it out! They're also looking for volunteers: http://seattleerotic.org/site2/index.php?page=volunteer

I am going to try and volunteer, but if I can't, I'll be there anyway!