Women's Porn Mag Cockblocked in UK

This is news from last year but Filament, a women's erotica magazine, was cockblocked by their printer for pictures of erect penises in their second issue. Apparently their first issue, released last year, had three sets of pics of hot lads without dropping their pants. That in itself surprises me.


On hearing the reader demand for hard cocks, the Filament team included some fine boneage in their second issue only to have their printer refuse, "citing potential objections from 'the women's/religious sectors.'"

Uhhh...what? Can you imagine a printer refusing to publish one of the thousands of porn mags for men because "men's/religious sectors" might object?

Kristina Lloyd and Mathilde Madden make some good points in the Guardian article about the whole debacle, including this gem:

While some contend the lack of female-oriented erotica reflects a lack of demand, claiming the free market would prevail if women wanted such material, Filament's experience of cockblocking proves otherwise. Perhaps what's most insidious in this saga is that the market's refusal to admit Filament reinforces an idea of female sexuality which justifies that very refusal. The absence of visual erotica for women on shelves crammed with magazines where women are products for male consumers, reduces female desire to the less-interested counterpart of male desire. The deficit positions women as the providers of sex for perpetually horny dudes. And so, runs the self-fulfilling logic, of course women don't want magazines targeting their desire. Women don't have desire, see? They merely receive it.

You might be wondering why I'm blogging about another porn magazine for women on the PoolBoy Magazine blog. Isn't that our competition, you may be wondering? Honestly, I'm just psyched to see there are other women producing porn mags. That's just more variety for ladies. It gets so old having to look at the same porn, and men don't seem to have this problem because there are tons of different mags and movies for them to look at. Women have less than a handful. Plus, how could you not love a magazine whose slogan is "the thinking woman's crumpet?"

Luckily the British magazine is now on it's 5th issue, proving that ladies all over the world love man meat.

This Just In: Women Want More Sex

all i can say is DUH

 According to a Pacific Magazines survey that will be published in tomorrow's Men's Health and Women's Health magazines, women want sex nearly as often as men. The research asked nearly 10,000 Australian men and women between the ages of 25 and 45 about their sex and romantic lives.


The results suggest that nearly one-third of women want sex every day in comparison to 40 percent of men. However, only 25 percent have sex weekly and a measly 20 percent have sex just once per month!
In terms of getting in the mood, one third of men and women enjoy a romantic dinner and the many (66 percent of women and 50 percent of men) list dancing as a sexual mood-enhancer.  A total of 62 percent of men and 52 percent of women claim that spending a romantic night in is the best way to set the mood for a night of passion.

Sadly, 38 percent of women feel that foreplay is too rushed and 35 percent of men are disappointed by the fact that women do not initiate sex. Over half of all respondents reported that the one thing they really want is to be seduced by a partner. Despite some complaints, participants seemed open to sexual experimentation with two-thirds reporting that they would watch porn or engage in role-play games with a partner.

(reblogged via Carnal Nation)

Breakin' The Law

Female Lawmakers Are Better Than Their Male Counterparts According to Politico:

Are women more effective lawmakers than men?

That’s the preliminary conclusion of a study conducted by researchers at Stanford University and the University of Chicago, who say that on average, women in Congress introduce more bills, attract more co-sponsors and bring home more money for their districts than their male counterparts do.

The study, which examined the performance of House members between 1984 and 2004, found that women delivered roughly 9 percent more discretionary spending for their districts than men.

For instance, during Rep. Judy Biggert’s first two-year term, Illinois’s 13th District received $382 million in federal funds, $70 million more than it received during the final term of her predecessor, Rep. Harris Fawell.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren delivered around $859 million to her district, compared with $541 million brought in by her predecessor, Rep. Don Edwards, during his final term, the researchers said.

And during then-Rep. Connie Morella’s first term, Maryland’s 8th District received $780 million, $183 million more than predecessor Rep. Michael Barnes brought in during his final term, they said.

While there are obviously variables beyond gender — seniority, party affiliation, majority/minority status and the differing priorities of a freshman and a veteran lawmaker — the researchers say they’ve accounted for those in making their male-to-female comparisons.

“You could easily make the argument that a politician who is on his way out, or someone who is sitting on a really powerful committee, is in a different position than someone just coming into office,” said Stanford researcher Sarah Anzia. “Not every example will cover every alternative explanation, but we control for all of those factors in the study.”

The researchers also found that women introduced more legislation than men who served in their same districts, often hitting the ground running in their first terms.

“We find that, on average, women sponsor about three bills more per Congress per term than their male counterparts,” said Anzia. “They co-sponsor more bills than other members, and they also obtain more co-sponsors for their own bills.”

Since 1789, women have constituted just 2 percent of the total congressional population. The ratio of female to male representatives has increased in recent years, but the pace is still fairly glacial: Nearly 17 percent of House members are women today, compared with about 3 percent in 1979.

Researchers say the small number of female members may have something to do with their effectiveness. Women who run and win are likely the most politically ambitious and talented of their pool, having potentially overcome hurdles including voter bias and self-doubt about their ability to win. Female candidates also tend to attract more challengers. Politically eligible women tend to doubt their ability to get elected and raise money more than men do, multiple studies have indicated. Large majorities of both men and women in candidate feeder pools, such as law offices and political organizations, believe there is a bias against women in elections, according to Lawless and Fox studies in 2005 and 2004.

Once women get to Capitol Hill, those hurdles may drive them to perform better, on average, than male counterparts who have faced a less contentious road.

“Research shows that even though women have similar success rates in primaries and elections as men, they are likely to face more challengers,” said Hartwick College political science department chairwoman Laurel Elder. “The results might be the same, but they might have to work harder to get those same results.”

Read the full story on Politico

I probably could have guessed this without doing all that research but it's good to have some facts to back up your shit right?

Right on ladies of the law! Keep it going!