Came home to a “nice package” from Tantus! Yeeeaaahhh! These bad boys are hygienic silicone strap-on ready vibrators. This is a beautiful time to be alive, my friends.

Pictured: about to be kicked out of the Ginger Man pub, I drunkenly hopped on these two hot guys on the couch to finish my beer (Eddie Codel and Jonathan Moore). A crowd gathered and I actually heard someone say, indicating us in our fleshpile, “Does anyone have a camera?” In a room full of bloggers and vloggers, where as Jonathan put it, “likely 75% of the North American supply of Xacti’s is right now”… um, yeah. This was the post-Interactive party, spontaneously put together over breakfast with Scott and Mike and sent to the masses via Twitter — creating what Scott calls a “Twittermob”. The party was fucking fabulous, I got to catch up with sweet Phillip, and there was lots o beer. Oh — the beer! Mike and Scott bought a couple pitchers as Blip and Laughing Squid respectively (”party by x”), and when it ran out Scott told random company and startup reps at the party they could “sponsor” it too by buying the next round — in exchange announcing the “sponsorship” over Twitter when the beer was purchased. It became a very fun novelty in no time and there was *too much* beer.

Update: Scott has a great description of the Twitter microsponsorship + party in this post — and while I’m sad there were no Laughing Squid pics of the party, it was *awesome* to see Scott set down the camera and pick up the pint glass!

Anyway, I got to spend some quality time with friends after all the panels and booths were done, and some sexy geeklets — notably #3 and #3. Teh h4wtness!

On with the SXSW sexy — a few days ago I posted the mp3 of the Sex and Computational Technology panel I was on, and I just discovered that video of the panel is online as well. You might also want to check out this video of the Film/Video panel, Sex Scenes Stay Hard Part Four.

This week’s column in Teh Chonic is Don’t Be Evil (Or A Dyke, Or Trans): Google’s AdWords confuses transgender terms with teen porn. We’ve all laughed (or shrieked) at the mis-matching of Google AdWords to search terms, or emails in Gmail — but in this case, sex-positive trans porn company Red Handed Porn found they only had offensive terms to choose among in AdWords. (While terms like “dyke” are considered ‘teen porn concepts’.) The article has a screenshot and lots of details — and hopefully this might lead to better dialogue between advertisers, ad businesses and the people they’re trying to reach. Or something.

Google has now responded to me. To be clear, I did contact Google for comments prior to the article, and I received immediate and cordial responses. But unless (and until) something was clearly stated “for publication” my editor added to the article, “(Unfortunately, Google did not respond to my request for comment for this piece.)” After a few emails this morning/afternoon between myself and a Google rep clearing up what was okay to quote, Google tells me,

“We appreciate the feedback from the parties in question and the opportunity
to hear different perspectives. We will use this information and other
feedback, including how these terms will actually get used in ads, to
further develop and refine lists that we use to identify potentially
unacceptable content. It is important to Google that we are effectively
addressing the needs and concerns of both our advertisers and users.”

The timing on this is very interesting, considering I was just on a panel about monetizing online content (specifically vlogging and independently made video content). Pairing ads with content, it seems, is a political minefield. These stodgy old companies — the advertisers — are used to having “safe” channels for their ads. Now they’re afraid of new media, but that’s where all the viewers are going. They know nothing about new media and how it works, and they’ve grown completely out of touch with their audience. They have had no need to know or care who we are (or in this case, what we call ourselves). One of the interesting parts of the panel discussion was hearing Nate Pagel from Podaddies (who is a *really* cool guy, BTW) and Mike Hudack from Blip.tv (!toptensexy!) talk about advertisers’ fear of being paired with indy content. The question here is, why? We discussed that the answers lie in these companies’ fears at the lack of control over indy content. Of course, that’s why we do it, of course, that’s why we get the traffic, of course that’s why indy media and self publishing *is important*. We can — and will — say things old media, and mainstream media won’t or can’t because they are beholden to the requirements of their advertisers, necessitating “safe” content (like on CNN, ABC, etc)… But I digress. It was discussed that one of the advertisers stating they were unwilling to be paired with indy vlog content is the US military. Enough said.

But now, I think advertisers and ad-generating services like AdWords (and like AdBrite, who I dumped for these reasons) need to do the work to forge a better understanding of who they’re working for on both sides of the equation.

In response to my article, Marketing Shift writes in Google Needs Sex Education, “Algorithms that try to determine context or intent must be continually tweaked by actual people who understand how words are used in contemporary language. As in this example, sometime automation can give results that go against logic, and Google needs to be aware when that happens.”

See also: Search Engine Land writes, When AdWords Gets Sex Wrong.

Go read the column already! Snip:

With equal parts bitter irony, offense and amusement, I receive regular e-mails from Open Source Sex readers about the keyword-generated Google AdWords text ads that regularly populate the bottom of this page. Take a look at a few of my columns — especially the porn entries — and you’ll be, er, treated to a fat serving of sexually shaming “porn addiction — get help” text ads. Which, of course, run totally against the grain of the pro-porn message I’m dishing out. Because I want you all to get help, too — help finding better porn, that is.

But I’ve never been shocked about this: Google AdWords has a rep for pairing inappropriate (if not offensive) text ads with the original content it’s posted with — especially when it comes to sex. AdWords’ insensitivities might seem trifling or even amusing on the surface (let’s assume those of you reading my column feel OK about porn enough to disregard the douchey anti-porn ads at the bottom of the page), but those trying to make a positive change in the way their sexuality is portrayed in the wider culture are facing a David vs. Goliath battle of keywords.

Link.

Updates: Tony Comstock has commentary here; the SF Gate Culture Blog has a deliciously snarky response to Google’s comment (with a great screenshot of today’s AdWords that are alongside my column). Also, Boots from Red Handed emails to thank me, and to say, “Oh, one point of clarification though. We do shoot trans folk, do advertise that content, but really we are a masturbation site. 65% or more of our performers are bio-women. The remaining performers are all over the gender spectrum. We even shoot some bona fide het guys.” Yummy stuff.

About to leave for the airport to come home — a couple connections and I’m back! Yay! A few things in the meantime:

* the weather here in Austin (video)
* my Lustbites interview just went up; that blog is quite a lineup of incredible writers and I’m thrilled to be on it.
* the panel on monetizing — and my participation in it — rocked the casbah. full report later. Scott shot it, images here.
* I put up more photos
* my dear, dear sweet friend Phillip made it; Scott shot it — check out the # of views. now that’s what I call linkbait.
* image: me interviewing qDot for GETV about Twitterdildonics!

If you want to listen to yesterday’s fun panel, the SXSW post is here, and you can snag the mp3 here. Yay!

Here’s the video. I uploaded more photos here.

It’s pouring down rain right now here in Austin, with the most beautiful thunder and lightning show I’ve witnessed in ages. We don’t really get thunder and lightning very often in SF — maybe once a year, if that. Interestingly, it’s usually around the time of my birthday when it happens (Autumnal Equinox). It doesn’t feel like my birthday right now. But I’m up on the second floor of a Victorian B & B with huge open windows and candlelight, so it feels quite sweet nonetheless.

SXSW is weird. It’s a convention that has a bit of an identity crisis, thinking it’s more of a creative festival. The panels in the Interactive section certainly have a lot of ideas and thoughts to take back home with me, but the attendees are lots of people that are mostly, to me, pretty much hanging out with big “for sale” signs around their necks. And the web celebrity thing is weird — not for my personal experiences here, because I’m totally on the DL, not doing any “web celeb” panels (truthfully, I’m not in those cliques), and I don’t think anyone really knows who I am except my friends. I’ve worn my badge for all of ten minutes — yesterday, to get my schwag bags. Mind you, there are some pretty talented people here, people who have things to offer that MSM isn’t ready for, or wouldn’t quite know what to do with — yet (agencies *are* signing people, and sniffing vlogosphere panty in the halls, for sure). But it’s the people that are 2.0 ambitious, the ones you can smell the vessel-constricting desire for fame (and money) on. Some of these people have achieved a bit of the mainstream attention they long for oh so bad, and are pushing their way ahead — I think, not knowing where they’re pushing to. That’s the funny thing. Where do they think they’re going? Don’t they know that celebrity is transitory, but being the butt of a Defamer post is forever? I mean, there really was a woman at one of the hipster-riddled emo-haircut startup parties last night who’d just had a few single-family-home-in-the-Castro down payment sized investments of cosmetic surgery on her young face (now Forever Young), who posed for Scott Beale in hopes of a photo but then wouldn’t approve a single shot for his use –even though to me, her photos looked great. There are some seriously aspiring assholes here.

There are no answers to any of my questions about this stuff. I’m just observing, that’s all. Here, in the dark, with the crazy shower outside and the ghostly, lightning-backlit trees.

The Sex and Computational Technology Panel today was a blast. qDot did a fantastic presentation, Cory Silverberg was inspiring and thoughtful (and I *love* him), Amanda Williams was a funny moderator, and Johanna Brewer was brilliant. It was nice to have so many people talking about teledildonics and machine sex, and the failures and hopes for this kind of tech. Most exciting were Silverberg’s ideas about how biometrics and teledildonic technology could be used to gain better and more accurate data on sexual response for studies: imagine if instead of people trying to have sex in lab conditions, we got data from people having sex in their natural environments (like at home), with the information being transmitted to doctors in real time via a web interface. We’d have more accurate sex information, that’s what. Of course, there was a bit of discussion about machine sex and loving the machine — I suggested re-purposing the three laws of robotics for role-play.

So that panel was great. And I’m having fun subverting security with Jonathan Moore, like sneaking into exclusive lounges where we don’t belong and taking poser pictures, then leaving, and social engineering friends into “exclusive” parties. (Congrats to Jonathan and Kevin for making the front page of Teh Chronic!) Plus, it’s really great to see Rachel, and I’m excited to see that Podtech is going all out for the Vloggies this year — I’ll visit the pimped-out booth tomorrow, w00t!

But I’m feeling like a fish out of water with all the scenemaking going on — out of water, even in the rain. I’m really not looking forward to being the critical voice on the monetizing panel tuesday. Or maybe I am. I wish I’d brought my GETV “I was internet famous once” t-shirt to wear. Someone told me last night that they tried to give one of my (upcoming tuesday) co-panelists one of our shirts, and that the person refused, offended. Interesting, no?

Photos, videos and stories from me later today; in the meantime Scott Beale has complete SXSW photo coverage going on at Laughing Squid. We finally caught up with each other at a party last night, and his best story was recounting to me the moment he introduced his pals Ze Frank and Robert Scoble. Awesome!

I made it to lovely Austin, yay! But I almost drove icepicks into my ears with rolled-up Sky Mall’s on the plane from SF listening to the endlessly namedropping mommybloggers seated (embedded/screechingly monetizingly festeringly) two rows behind me. Almost didn’t make it here alive, dear readers… seriously, they were all in their mousy brown highlights and pantsuits saying, “I can’t believe I’m saying I’m a ‘blogger’. Ohmigod, it sounds like a disease! Who’s your husband?! I’m monetizing my parenting blog.”

Ugh. I told Hacker Boy to nail me with a thorazine dart gun tomorrow by 5pm when I start running through the expo looking for combustibles and godcasters to make a bonfire with.

I’m on 4 hours of sleep and little food — too tired to tag photos — my SXSW set begins here. Found one of those sweet little “we searched your bag” notes form the TSA in my suitcase; sex toys are still intact so all will be okay. Now, to sleep…

Meaning, I’m finally packed and soothing my nervousness and stress with cocktails and relationship chat. I was deeply hurt by a lover today — and am heading into tricky lover/evil ex-lover territory at SXSW (toxic boy will be there, yuck). So Jonathan Moore and I have been in my kitchen with inebriants over ice, making a definitive list of rules on how to get hurt. He blogged the rules of the How To Get Hurt Game while we chatted.

I am never, *ever* dating someone who keeps me a secret again. That’s my other new rule.

I leave at 7am, yikes! Re: nervous. I’m on a panel I totally don’t belong on — I’m the only non-monetizing person on an monetizing panel, so I’m filled with apprehension and morbid excitement about being the only person to question integrity and creativity vs. selling your content. What am I going to talk about when they talk about their great ad sales and sponsors? Why use indy media when you express yourself like MSM? Really, how they compromise and what they wear when they do it, of course.

Actually my only question is, how are you any different than MSM when you have corporate sponsors? A good question to explore. Why do indymedia if you’re looking for money? Not that indymedia and monetization are counter to each other, I’m just wondering how they’re different.

I’m looking forward to making more friends, or something.

I’m excited. Got a new video camera tonight, so look out.

Finally — Brad the way I’ve always wanted him… Seattle’s The Stranger (”Seattle’s only newspaper”) is one of my favorite free weeklies, most especially because it’s home to Dan Savage, the HUMP! porn festival, and their awesome Lovelab and Lustlabs. Their whipsmart, kinky sex-positive personals Lustlabs rock — and I just love artist Ellen Forney’s personal-ad illustrations that go up every wednesday. They’re being made into a Fanatagraphics book due out in early 2008, but you can also follow her ongoing illustrations on her Lustlab Ad of the Week blog category. Fun and very sexy, indeed. I’m bummed I missed her at the Booksmith here in SF last night. (thanks, Xeni!)

Mini-update: funny, I see it’s now also seen @ Boing Boing, tho I like my art choice more :)

In this week’s Chron column, I get up close and personal with human-animal fetishists and their local outings, such as a “foxhunt” at a Nor Cal ranch and a “dog and pony” show here in town. Snip from Whoa, Nelly!:

For some people, life is a veritable dog and pony show; for a select few others, it’s a literal dog and pony show. If you think I’m talking about well-to-do humanitarian types in Pac Heights who donate an hour (and maybe even a few grand) to the SPCA now and then, you may want to skip on over to the SF Gate’s Your Whole Pet section — because I’m talking about a whole different animal. I’m talking about grown men and women — consenting, articulate adults — who enjoy fetish role play as human animals, especially dogs and horses but even foxes. The Bay Area is such a, er, zoo that we’re a hotbed of active online groups and home to park outings for just that kind of fun. In fact, one could even take a human pony to a full-scale ranch in Northern California for a weekend of dressage training, if one felt so inclined.

The story began one afternoon at Cafe Flore, when I asked an old friend how his main (though not only) squeeze was doing. He told me she’d been seeing another lover — and that they’d gone on a “fox hunt.” Thinking this was some kind of polyamory code for a wild night at the Power Exchange (powerexchange.com), I asked how the hunting was. He said: “Oh, it was great. But there were so many dogs, they said it was tough to find the fox.” Then I thought: “Was this a real hunt? Like, actual hunting for animals is so not cool around the Bay Area.”

My friend went on to explain that the hunt took place at The Ranch, “an alternate lifestyle campground and outdoor play space.”

Link. (image via the very hardcore Petgirls)

A few hours ago I cracked a filling and had the pieces come out in my hand. We’ve all had the dream — when it happened I stared into my hand in disbelief and felt like the air was liquid, that ‘am I dreaming’ feeling. Tomorrow am I see a dentist — no insurance, of course. Yay America! Take my tooth, please.

So no blogging for a bit. But I promise not to report any gross or yucky tooth details.

Update: Not one, but two teeth lost fillings. Ow. Owowowow. My jaw feels like my dental work was done by the Screw Machine. maybe it was. Think I’ll take tonight off, too. Thank you for all of your sweet, supportive emails :)

Just spotted at Bedazzled: the trailer for the 1967 film, Professor Lust (image via). It’s got acres of retro boobies, monsters, and so much sampleable audio — just ready for remixing. Link to post with viewing options.

The article I linked to in my last post is really bugging me. You see, I’m of the reasoned, seasoned opinion that any argument based on the blanket theory “sex sells” is questionable, at best (and flimsy bullshit at worst). Sex does indeed get attention and boobies pull people in, no argument there. But if the entire world could be bought and sold with a porn star or an episode of Baywatch, then — as I argued in my column Web Celebs and My Rainbow-Flag Bikini — why wasn’t the algorithmically generated Forbes Web Celeb 25 filled with web porn stars? Things have changed in the world of sex and media, and it’s changing with every click of *your* mouse. It’s worth thinking about, and worth questioning whenever anyone says that someone (or a newspaper) is using sex to sell something. I think people are much more sexually sophisticated than these tired old arguments are giving them (us) credit for. At least, that’s the truism I follow. A pair of tits (or some lurid prose) won’t save newspapers, but having a real relationship with its readers — and providing a thoughtful respite and accurate cultural reflection about sex — will. It’s just stupid to build business models without including sex culture (human nature) in them anymore. Old media minds see sex as bad and the last bastion of the desperate. Think forward, and you see that nothing is further from the truth.

Anyway, check out this interesting article in The Economist, The big turn off, about the failure of sex to sell products in a recent study:

SEXUAL allure is often hinted as being the prize for buying this or that. Yet advertising wares during commercial breaks in programmes with an erotic theme can be tricky: the minds of viewers tend to be preoccupied with what they have just seen and the advertisement is ignored. New research now suggests that even if the commercial is made sexually enticing, people still fail to remember it.

Ellie Parker and Adrian Furnham of University College London devised an experiment to test three ideas. The first was to confirm that men and women alike would struggle to remember the brand of a product that was advertised during a break in a programme that contained sex. The second was that commercials that had an erotic element would be recalled more readily than those that did not. Finally they wanted to know whether people would remember the advertisement more easily if its theme contrasted with the programme into which it had been inserted.

Link.

…but it’s amusing to have my name in the same para as Rupert Murdoch, for whatever that’s worth. I stumbled across an article in Teh Chronic last night using *me* as the example of porn in US mainstream media. Snip:

For the Sun of London, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch and edited by a woman (Rebekah Wade) who supports the Page 3 format, images of sexually provocative models certainly sell papers. But public depictions of nudes are more acceptable in Britain than in the United States. The Sun’s approach might never work in America, but Ponce de Leon envisions a day — perhaps in the next few years — when U.S. newspapers regularly report and comment on pornography, which generates $12 billion a year in revenue in this country. The most explicit stories might only appear on a paper’s Web site, not in print, he said, but their presence would be publicized to the paper’s wider readership. In September, SFGate.com hired a sex columnist, Violet Blue, whose work is available only online.

“That’s the direction the culture is moving in,” Ponce de Leon said. “The diffusion and decentralization of sources of information will make (papers’ coverage of pornography) inevitable, just as it will be inevitable that varieties of pornography for every taste will be piped into homes through video-on-demand. There’ll be packages (of pornography) just like there are in sports. That’s not to say that people won’t be upset. They will. But that’s the direction the culture is clearly moving in.”

Link.

Many of you will remember that before I ran off to Vienna and Roboexotica last December, I blogged some exclusives from my friend Dacia’s (then) upcoming porn film, The Bi Apple. Last saturday they had a release party for it in New York, and omg, I really, really wish I could have been there… The post-party post on Fleshbot is not to be missed, complete with photos and videos a plenty. ::le sigh::

The safety questions brought up by the reliability of these glow in the dark handcuffs, or the (!) glow in the dark massage oil they’re sold with? Yikes — what’s in that stuff? However, if you’re really in the market for some good handcuffs (or if one MUST be arrested), a girl like me would certainly prefer ones that would accent my outfit, like these.

As many of you know, the Mayor of San Francisco is a recently reformed teetotaler, after a round with a sex scandal. Well, now there’s this:

“San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s administration will change its policy on issuing laudatory proclamations after a gay porn studio was honored last week without the mayor’s knowledge, city officials said Friday.

Conservative activists and pundits nationwide belittled the city after Newsom’s office declared Feb. 23 to be Colt Studio Day, honoring the 40th anniversary of a San Francisco movie company whose Web site invites visitors to “come inside to experience the hottest man-on-man action.”

The official document, bearing Newsom’s name, was presented by a representative of the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Services to the company during its anniversary party. It said Colt Studio “has produced movies that have entertained the gay community over the past 40 years” and has contributed to the city by bringing in “hundreds of millions of dollars in business” and “stimulating the job market and the local economy in general.”

Newsom’s office issues nearly 2,000 proclamations a year, most covering such innocuous topics as Australian Heritage Day and Graffiti Watch Day. They are typically issued by the Neighborhood Services Office without the mayor or his top aides reviewing their content, which was the case with the document honoring the gay porn studio, Newsom’s spokesman said Friday.

But in the wake of attacks by conservative media figures such as talk show host Bill O’Reilly — who said the proclamation reinforced San Francisco’s reputation as the nation’s “Sodom and Gomorrah” — Newsom has decided to change the policy and have any potentially controversial proclamation cleared by either his chief of staff or director of government affairs.” Link.

So it seems that Bill O’Reilly now runs the moral timbre of our Barbary Coast pit stop.

As my friend in program recently put it about Mayor Newsom’s newfound clean and sober prudery, “I’m getting a little tired of this rehab means never having to say your sorry’ sentiment going around. Trust me, I’ve already got half of California on my amends list, and I’m not even on that step yet.”

(more…)

As I just posted on Techyum, yesterday Comcast decided to stop playing nice with all sites hosted on Laughing Squid, which sucks royally. I’m back now and hope the situation gets resolved for everyone soon; I’m fine now because in a coincidence, I switched providers today.

It’s so cute — cupcakes! robots! pathos! — it’s going to make your teeth hurt and give you instant cavities, I promise. Reader (and hottie) Madeline congratulates me on Techyum and sends me The Continuing Adventures of Rodney Robot: Escape from Planet Sprinkle. Read, giggle, enjoy all the frosting, cupcakes, and dramatic robotic conflict in one bitty bot’s search for true understanding! I am…

Some readers will remember that I had a weird experience at the GayVN’s last weekend; I decided to go in-depth into the whole concept of gay-for-pay, and I think the piece turned out really interesting. I’m getting lots of mail; one “proposal”, at least one very angry email from the brother of a gay-for-pay performer who thinks I’m dead wrong, and a number of supportive — even heartfelt — emails from gay men about coming out. Here’s a snip from Gay for Pay: Are there really any straight men in gay porn?:

“Jack Shamama, from locally run Gay Porn Blog (gaypornblog.com), tells me: “All gay for pay is, is a resurgence of ‘bisexual.’ Bisexuality has gone in and out of fashion throughout history — the last time it was fashionable was in the 1970s. Now it’s not. Porn marketers think gay for pay is sexier and more sellable than calling it bisexual.”

Understanding what’s going on when a man is “gay for the money” is a matter of separating packaging from reality, and self-identification from studio identification. Gay-for-pay “poster boy” Jason Adonis is on every gay-for-pay listing, but look for statements of sexual orientation and you’ll get no more than the label “gay” on his Wikipedia page. Others see gay-for-pay performers like the one who approached me with (I think) something to prove in the intensely gay atmosphere of the GayVNs as confused — as actually bisexual in a genre that can’t see bi men or as just sexually out of control, irresponsible or worse: After my escape, I told a friend outside the Castro about my fending off the porn star, and my pal cruelly remarked, “Oh, you didn’t want the AIDS?”

But worse is worse: Some gay-for-pay men might be just marketing fluff and others worthy of study, while still others cultivate a murderous homophobia that evolves into an unchecked monster — and they kill. I’m referring to the gay-porn star who allegedly murdered a wealthy Denver “benefactor” in cold blood: “Playgirl killer” and well-known Falcon gay-for-pay porn star Marcus Allen (real name: Timothy Boham). I knew, like many, that the Playgirl model, alleged former gay escort and star of many gay-porn films, “Marcus Allen” was gay for pay. But in this case, it seems that homophobia and gay for pay are inextricably intertwined, even though Shamama tells me that, anecdotally, on porn sets Allen (Boham) was “gay for free, too.” Clearly, this gay-for-pay porn star was conflicted, and being bisexual was explicitly not OK.” Link.