Friday, June 19, 2009

Old Hardcore no more Ah... those were the days. No replicas. The real deal. Stocking were made of real silk from real cacoons silk worms and pantys were meticulously handcrafted. Note some of the furniture "extraordinaire". The sofa could have well been bought at a modern furniture outlet near you, those that specialize in showcasing italian comtemporary design. Alright, alright. We are here for the coochie. But say you are not inspired by the old LPs standing on the shelf to her right. That is, once you take your eyeballs from the *prize* and focus on something else :) 9:04:24 AM

Monday, December 05, 2005

Ain't they pretty? Source: best lesbian site 11:27:09 PM

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Dildosaurios Dildos Are Making History Prostitution may be the oldest profession in the world but dildos are beating the hell out of it in the time-space continuum. According to some recent BBC news a 20cm-long, 3cm-wide stone object, which is dated to be about 28,000 years old, was buried in the famous Hohle Fels Cave near Ulm in the Swabian Jura. You got it. The now infamous object happens to be a formidable dildo made out of stone. "The prehistoric "tool" was reassembled from 14 fragments of siltstone", noted the article. It continues: 'Its life size suggests it may well have been used as a sex aid by its Ice Age makers, scientists report.' "In addition to being a symbolic representation of male genitalia, it was also at times used for knapping flints," explained Professor Nicholas Conard, from the department of Early Prehistory and Quaternary Ecology, at Tübingen University. Well, well, well. Professor Conard, care to explain what in the prehistoric world knapping flints means? A sexual ritual by which cavemen were hoping to entice their counterparts?  An obscure, divine technique for arousing cavegirls' clits? An ass-slapping motion for declaring victory after a dispute over a cavewoman's quaternary hymen?  Professor Conard added "It's highly polished; it's clearly recognisable," You mean: it's been used by the entire tribe and nearby monkey-like relatives thousands of times. The article went to say "Female representations with highly accentuated sexual attributes are very well documented at many sites, but male representations are very, very rare." Current evidence indicates that the Swabian Jura of southwestern Germany was one of the central regions of cultural innovation after the arrival of modern humans in Europe some 40,000 years ago.  The Hohle Fels phallus will go on show at Blaubeuren prehistoric museum in an exhibition called Ice Art - Clearly Male. Learn from the wise men of the past here. 12:26:37 AM

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Nasty Sexy Art Erotic Art Meets Goth Meets Porn NEW YORK - Erotic artist Irvin Bomb on Wednesday will premiere "Nasty Art: Model Search," a new show on the Events In Demand pay-per-view channel that features four adult film stars. In "Nasty Art: Model Search," Bomb paints portraits of two sizzling duos, Vivid Girl Monique Alexander and Penny Flame, and Penthouse Pet Jassie and Jezebelle Bond. He painted one clothed portrait and one nude of each couple. "I deliberately go out of my way to work with girls in the adult industry," Bomb said. "I'd rather spend the money for girls that are into it." Bomb's "Nasty Art" shows have been airing on the Hot Choice In Demand channel for the past five years, but the change will increase the potential viewers from 12 million to 28 million homes. He said the girls "seemed to have a rapport with each other." "I always ask Derek {Hay} at LA Direct to put his input in. I always ask prior to the shoot starting so that I'm working with girls who have a relationship with each other," (ie. lesbians girls) Bomb said. "They have a history together I think their relationship adds to the painting. They're not stiff. The girls were comfortable. The premise of "Nasty Art: Model Search" is that Bomb is propositioning girls on the streets of New York about posing for nude portraits. "Nasty Art" is an ongoing series with a new show airing every other month. The June show is called "Nasty Art: Slumber Party." Bomb has published a non-explicit book of nude portraits of porn stars called "The Art of Irvin Bomb" (2001, NBM Publishing), which is available in Virgin Megastores and Borders. ------------- source: AVN 2:06:55 AM

Friday, December 05, 2003

Interview to PAUL: The Big Tit Artist!  How old were you when you got into huge breasts? Who were some of the girls that got you pumped, and why? Pauly: I was in the 7th grade in Buffalo New York, my hometown. I had a substitute teacher for two days who had the biggest breasts and as we Italians say, I was struck by the thunderbolt! Then I used to sneak peeks at the old titty mags back then like "Fling" and Uschi Digart and Candy Samples were the ones who made my young dick extend! I loved their attitude that said "I have BIIIG TITS and I want men to look at them and jack off!" When did you begin developing your art? Tell us about your background in art. Pauly: I am really mostly untrained in the classic sense. I had a great art teacher in high school who opened my mind to surrealism, which allows you to think with no boundaries, what you would call today 'thinking outside the box.' As far as development, it was nude girls immediately, starting with a busty brunette that I saw in Gent when I was 17. Big brown eyes and black hair, great curves, huge tits. I don't remember her name. Then I would do all these surrealistic things, working in  busty girls wherever I could. Probably explains why I never became famous with the art galleries! All those drawings are on my site. Do you go to strip clubs? Which ones? Is it hard to find busty strippers? How much time do you spend in strip clubs? Pauly: I don't go to strip clubs anymore, but I did in the past. The reason I never became a busty gal photographer fulltime is I couldn't afford the models so going to strip clubs meant losing big money. I did have a few models who worked with me for free and you can see them, at Paulyarts.com, my busty art and photo site. How do you work? Do you ever hire models and then embellish their bust size? Where do you get your inspiration from? Pauly: Inspiration comes from seeing girls in public who HUGE TITS and I want to ask them to pose and I never do because I figure they'll think I'm a jerk so I go home and paint a pose I remember, having watched some beautiful creature reach for a blouse or a necklace. As far as how I create, I do it all from photos I took or parts of photos from SCORE magazine, as I don't buy anything else. A hot leg here, an arm there...but I know a woman's anatomy so well that I mostly just invent it all! Name some of your most favorite SCORELAND models. Pauly: Anything with my buddy Vanessa Montagne, SaRenna Lee, Sharday. I loved the cover shot from August '96 SCORE, the issue my story "The Diary of Janie Pratt" was in. It's the story of a tomboy who blossoms through exercise and surgery and blows all the guys away, only to find she's a bisexual who loves big tits and women who love big tits! My favorite theme! Who are your own favorite artists of busty women and why? Pauly: Otis, of course. I grew up on him, as well as Vargas (who didn't paint huge tits but I enhance them in Photoshop for my own fun and make them huge the way I always wished he did!). Mainly because they understand sensuality, sexuality, as opposed to pure glamour. You can really inject sex into a picture if you know a little psychology. I must admit it was more fun in the past when sexuality was hinted at, like a girl about to suck another girl's big breasts, not showing all the details, like the movie "Alien", which was more hints of the creature than all the terrible damage it did. That inch or two of space between the tongue-tip and the very engorged nipple was for me all of life in a frozen spot, that once unfrozen would result in the girl's nipple being swallowed whole and the tongue would begin sliding around it and giving it little bites while the worshipper's fingers would be sliding in between her wet lips to finger her...meanwhile, the girl with those big boobs was surrendering to the tongue of the other woman, all life coming to a standstill for her as well. What medium do you mostly work in? How do you create your art? Pauly: I used to work solely in pencil which was tedious but very beautiful in the final stage. However, I can create things in Photoshop in seconds that I see in my head, plus the intense color, so that's it for me. I work in hundreds of layers which allow me to continually re-compose and perfect things like the light, which is the most important step after anatomy. I might have alyer that is a single highlight on a girl's thigh for example. It's how they do the incredible reality of films like "Shrek" or "Finding Nemo." I stylize and light and shape and perfect. I just started doing these nudes in January of '03, but I'm getting better every day! When did you go computer? Pauly: As opposed to the way Otis works with airbrush where one must use frisket paper and cut positive and negative spaces and strain paint and all this bullshit, I just can't deal with it, I'm too fucking fast. My hat's off to him because I know the hours I put in with pencil. But damn! The visions you see in your head can all be realized with the computer paint programs and that is NOT to say that I use automated or pre-existing material or patterns. To use Photoshop properly, you have to remain true to art and use only the tools that are creative, not fake-out stuff. But if you wanted to invert part of a piece to negative just to see what it looks like, you'd have to paint that for weeks, so there are some automation tools that are handy. I draw in the computer with a tool called the Polygon Lasso, which involves clicking points with the mouse and that can add up to thousands of clicks in a piece. I have some tutorials I wrote on creating naked woman art and using Photoshop. Are huge breasts any easier or more difficult to draw than any other part of the body? Pauly: For me, I am such a fiend for big tits that when I pass a woman who does not have them, my personal mantra is "No Tits" and I move on. So anyone with that kind of a fetish has no problem drawing or designing because the hours just melt away and when the creature appears there in front of me from my own hand/imagination, I am captivated. But I will say that the human body is the most difficult thing to draw as we all know what it's supposed to look like and can spot problems easily. The female breast is a problem as much as the eyes...it can have many shapes, but there are few that are attractive to just anyone...I design my girl's tits to be attractive to women. In fact, I design all my works, with few exceptions, to be attractive to women, not men! Men like anything, but the true test is to have a woman review the works and say, 'well, it doesn't turn me on, but it's beautiful.' Years back, the mens magazines were loaded with breast-oriented cartoons. Should we bring them back or would you rather see the space be used for photos? Pauly: Art! Photography is wonderful, but you can't do anything other than keep the focus and lighting correct. Cartoons are cool, but I would rather see single pieces of art by other big tit artists, no one does that, no funny captions needed, just guys or girls who are devoted to wild visons of Big Titted women! Ricky Carralaro, I think his name is, he's a monster! There's just more you can do with computer-enhanced/altered photos/art than you can with photos in the end, like expensive sets that could never be built for some model, like a moonlit balcony with fireflies illuminating the breasts, or my forest scene with the winged creature that looks like it's out of Lord of the Rings. Your work is more oriented towards artificial breast-expansion-the super-fantasy tits (fake boobs) - than the natural-chested models. Is that correct? What big naturals do you like? Pauly: I definitely create women that are such a rarity in real life that you see one every eight months or so...girls that make you freeze in your tracks and just stare to record the vision in your head because sadly she will soon be gone. Last night was my most recent sighting and it was about eight months ago that I saw this girl who could've been world-famous! As far as naturals, if Ines Cudna is a natural she's got my vote, Yulia and the dream of all time, Nadine Jansen! -------------------- Entire interview could be found in Scoreland.com. Preview Scoreland models and Scoreland website. 7:56:41 PM

Monday, June 02, 2003

W O R L D   O F   E N D S The Internet isn't complicated The idea behind the Internet in the first place was to harness the awesome power of simplicity — as simple as gravity in the real world. Except instead of holding little rocks tight against the big round rock, the Internet was designed to hold smaller networks together, turning them into one big network. The way to do that is to make it easy easy easy for the networks to send and receive data to and from one another. Thus, the Internet was designed to be the simplest conceivable way to get bits from any A to any B. The Internet isn't a thing. It's an agreement. When we look at utility poles, we see networks as wires. And we see those wires as parts of systems: The phone system, the electric power system, the cable TV system. When we listen to radio or watch TV, we're told during every break that networks are sources of programming being beamed through the air or through cables. But the Internet is different. It isn't wiring. It isn't a system. And it isn't a source of programming. The Internet is a way for all the things that call themselves networks to coexist and work together. It's an inter-network. Literally. What makes the Net inter is the fact that it's just a protocol — the Internet Protocol, to be exact.  A protocol is an agreement about how things work together. This protocol doesn’t specify what people can do with the network, what they can build on its edges, what they can say, who gets to talk. The protocol simply says: If you want to swap bits with others, here’s how. If you want to put a computer – or a cell phone or a refrigerator – on the network, you have to agree to the agreement that is the Internet. The Internet is stupid. The telephone system, which is not the Internet (at least not yet), is damn smart. It knows who's calling whom, where they're located, whether it's a voice or data call, how far the call reaches, how much the call costs, etc. And it provides services that only a phone network cares about: call waiting, caller ID, *69 and lots of other stuff that phone companies like to sell. The Internet, on the other hand, is stupid. On purpose. Its designers made sure the biggest, most inclusive network of them all was dumb as a box of rocks. The Internet doesn’t know lots of things a smart network like the phone system knows: Identities, permissions, priorities, etc. The Internet only knows one thing: this bunch of bits needs to move from one end of the Net to another. There are technical reasons why stupidity is a good design. Stupid is sturdy. If a router fails, packets route around it, meaning that the Net stays up. Thanks to its stupidity, the Net welcomes new devices and people, so it grows quickly and in all directions. It's also easy for architects to incorporate Net access into all kinds of smart devices — camcorders, telephones, sprinkler systems — that live at the Net's ends. That's because the most important reason Stupid is Good has less to do with technology and everything to do with value... Adding value to the Internet lowers its value. The Sounds screwy, but it's true. If you optimize a network for one type of application, you de-optimize it for others. For example, if you let the network give priority to voice or video data on the grounds that they need to arrive faster, you are telling other applications that they will have to wait. And as soon as you do that, you have turned the Net from something simple for everybody into something complicated for just one purpose. It isn't the Internet anymore. All the internet's value grows on its edges. If the Internet were a smart network, its designers would have anticipated the importance of a good search engine and would have built searching into the network itself. But because its designers were smart, they made the Net too stupid for that. So searching is a service that can be built at one of the million ends of the Internet. Because people can offer any services they want from their end, search engines have competed, which means choice for users and astounding innovation. Search engines are just an example. Because all the Internet does is throw bits from one end to another, innovators can build whatever they can imagine, counting on the Internet to move data for them. You don’t have to get permission from the Internet’s owner or systems administrator or the Vice President of Service Prioritization. You have an idea? Do it. And every time you do, the value of the Internet goes up. The Internet has created a free market for innovation. That’s the key to the Internet's value. By the same token... Money moves to the suburbs. If all of the Internet’s value is at its edges, Internet connectivity itself wants to become a commodity. It should be allowed to do so. There’s good business in providing commodities, but every attempt to add value to the Internet itself must be resisted. To be specific: Those who provide Internet connectivity inevitably will want to provide content and services also because the connectivity itself will be too low-priced. By keeping the two functions separate, we will enable the market to set prices that will maximize access and to maximize content/service innovation. The end of the World? Nah! The world of ends. When Craig Burton describes the Net's stupid architecture as a hollow sphere comprised entirely of ends3, he’s painting a picture that gets at what’s most remarkable about the Internet’s architecture: Take the value out of the center and you enable an insane flowering of value among the connected end points. Because, of course, when every end is connected, each to each and each to all, the ends aren’t endpoints at all. And what do we ends do? Anything that can be done by anyone who wants to move bits around. Notice the pride in our voice when we say “anything” and “anyone”? That comes directly from the Internet’s simple, stupid technical architecture. Because the Internet is an agreement, it doesn’t belong to any one person or group. Not the incumbent companies that provide the backbone. Not the ISPs that provide our connections. Not the hosting companies that rent us servers. Not the industry associations that believe their existence is threatened by what the rest of us do on the Net. Not any government, no matter how sincerely it believes that it's just trying to keep its people secure and complacent. To connect to the Internet is to agree to grow value on its edges. And then something really interesting happens. We are all connected equally. Distance doesn’t matter. The obstacles fall away and for the first time the human need to connect can be realized without artificial barriers. The Internet gives us the means to become a world of ends for the first time. The Internet three virtues: So, those are the facts about the Internet. See, we told you they were simple. But what do they mean for our behavior … and more importantly, the behavior of the mega-corps and governments that until now have acted as if the Internet were theirs? Here are three basic rules of behavior that are tied directly to the factual nature of the Internet: No one owns it. Everyone can use it. Anyone can improve it. No one owns it: It can't be owned, even by the companies whose "pipes" it passes through, because it is an agreement, not a thing. The Internet not only is in the public domain, it is a public domain. And that’s a good thing: The Internet is a reliable resource. We can build businesses without having to worry that Internet, Inc. is going to force us to upgrade, double its price once we have bought in, or get taken over by one of our competitors. We don't have to worry that some parts of it are going to work with one provider and others will work with some other provider, like we have with the cell phone business in the U. S. today. We don't have to worry that its basic functions are only going to work with Microsoft's, Apple's or AOL's "platform" — because it sits beneath all of them, outside their proprietary control. Maintaining the Internet is distributed among all users, not concentrated in the hands of a provider that might go out of business, and all of us are a more resilient resource than any centralized group of us could be. Everyone can use it: The Internet was built to include everyone on the planet. True, only a tenth of the world – a mere 600,000,000+ people – currently connects to the Internet. So "can" in the phrase "Everybody can use it" is subject to the miserable inequities of fortune. But, if you're lucky enough to possess sufficient material wealth for a connection and a connective device, the network itself imposes no obstacles to participation. You don't need a system administrator to deign to let you participate. The Internet purposefully leaves permissions out of the system. That's also why the Internet feels to so many of us like a natural resource. We have flocked to it as if it were a part of human nature just waiting to happen — just as speaking and writing now feel like a part of what it means to be human. Anyone can improve it Anyone can make the Internet a better place to live, work and raise up kids. It takes a real blockhead with a will of iron to make it worse. There are two ways to make it better. First, you can build a service on the edge of the Net that’s available to anyone who wants. Make it free, make people pay for it, put out a tin cup, whatever. Second, you can do something more important: enable a whole new set of end-of-Net services by coming up with a new agreement. That’s how email was created. And newsgroups. And even the Web. The creators of these services didn’t simply come up with end-based applications, and they sure didn’t tinker with the Internet protocol itself. Instead, they came up with new protocols that use the Internet as it exists, the way the agreement about how to encode images on paper enabled fax machines to use telephone lines without requiring any changes to the phone system itself. Remember, though, that if you come up with a new agreement, for it to generate value as quickly as the Internet itself did, it needs to be open, unowned, and for everyone. That’s exactly why Instant Messaging has failed to achieve its potential: The leading IM systems of today — AOL's AIM and ICQ and Microsoft's MSN Messenger — are private territories that may run on the Net, but they are not part of the Net. When AOL and Microsoft decide they should run their IM systems using a stupid protocol that nobody owns and everybody can use, they will have improved the Net enormously. Until then, they're just being stupid, and not in the good sense. If the Internet is so simple, why everyone has been so bonehead about it? Could it be because the three Internet virtues are the antithesis of how governments and businesses view the world? Nobody owns it: Businesses are defined by what they own, as governments are defined by what they control. Everybody can use it: In business, selling goods means transferring exclusive rights of use from the vendor to the buyer; in government, making laws means imposing restrictions on people. Anybody can improve it: Business and government cherish authorized roles. It's the job of only certain people to do certain things, to make the right changes. Business and government by their natures are predisposed to misunderstand the Internet's nature. There's another reason the Internet hasn't done a great job explaining itself: The Big Money would prefer to keep telling us the Net is just slow TV. The Internet has been too much like that other Walt who wrote in "Song of Myself": I do not trouble myself to be understood. I see that the elementary laws never apologize. On the other hand, the Internet’s elementary laws never figured people would build careers on not understanding them. Some mistakes we can stop making already. The companies whose value came from distributing content in ways the market no longer wants – can you hear us Recording Industry? – can stop thinking that bits are like really lightweight atoms. You are never going to prevent us from copying the bits we want. Instead, why not give us some reasons to prefer buying music from you? Hell, we might even help you sell your stuff if you asked us to. The government types who have confused the value of the Internet with the value of its contents could realize that in tinkering with the Internet's core, they're actually driving down its value. In fact, they maybe could see that having a system that transports all bits equally, without government or industry censorship, is the single most powerful force for democracy and open markets in history. The incumbent providers of networking services — Hint: It begins with "tele" and ends with "com" — could accept that the stupid network is going to swallow their smart network. They could bite the bullet now rather than running up hundreds of billions of dollars in costs delaying and fighting the inevitable. The federal agency responsible for allocating spectrum might notice that the value of open spectrum is the same as the true value of the Internet. Those who would censor ideas might realize that the Internet couldn't tell a good bit from a bad bit if it bit it on its naughty bits. Whatever censorship is going to occur will have to occur on the Net's ends – and it's not going to work very well. Perhaps companies that think they can force us to listen to their messages — their banners, their interruptive graphic crawls over the pages we're trying to read — will realize that our ability to flit from site to site is built into the Web’s architecture. They might as well just put up banners that say "Hi! We don't understand the Internet. Oh, and, by the way, we hate you." Enough already. Let's stop banging our heads against the facts of the Internet life. We have nothing to lose but our stupidity. The entire paper can be found here. Enjoy! 11:42:51 PM

Tuesday, May 27, 2003

Erotic poems are a form of art. Stealing images and text from other websites and assembling them in one piece is NOT another form of art. It's VIRTUAL COLLAGE. In this rainy afternoon -sexual temperature on the rise- my libido transformed the lowest of my darkest rumblings into an astonishing poem, worth of being recited by Nero on a burning Rome background. I WISH I WERE A DUMMY It's stupid cause you think you're funny but really you're just a dummy. I hate your ass, you don't know how much. It's enough for me to put a punch-- Right in your crotch, that's where it'll land if you don't be careful when you glance smugly like a smart ass right towards me. It gets on my nerves when you look my way. Why don't you just go away? I wish I knew, but I don't have a clue. So here I sit (on your face), all sad and blue knowing you're here to stay, oh, whoopie, my wet pussy! Isn't this just lucky for me? Gee I'm happy, thanks a lot, it feels like I just got a shot (of your cum). Oh! What a feeling, one I can't describe. (but taste) All I know is that I don't feel fine. I feel like shit, that's what I know. I'm sure that I would let it show. One thing I know really for sure is that I hate you with a passion you stupid dummy bitch. Now go and do something ... I suggest you increase the size of your faked, plastic dummy dick!!!! I hear a standing ovation. *sigh*.  Find the complete UNCENSORED set of "older sister Martina" at 18eighteen.com or preview eighteen photos. 8:15:34 PM

© Copyright 2009 erotic blog. Last update: 6/19/2009; 9:20:00 AM.