Sarah wants to seduce her stepfather and she's come up with what she thinks is the perfect plan. She'll tell him that she wants to post some photos ofSarah wants to seduce her stepfather and she's come up with what she thinks is the perfect plan. She'll tell him that she wants to post some photos of herself on-line and wants him to have a look at them. In each photo she shows him she is wearing less clothes.
If this ebook contained only the main story I would have given it four stars, as it isn't a particular outstanding example of the author's work. There are plenty of stepfather stories and this one doesn't feature a heroine with the offbeat charm which is her trademark. The idea of including the photos in the story is an interesting one, but they are a little too obviously purchased glamour shots.
The bonus story How I Met My Wife is what makes this one worthwhile. It's quite a short story, but a charming and innovative one. Whether it works for you will depend on whether you need a story to be remotely believable. This one isn't, but it's such an otherworldly fantasy that it creates its own kind of magic.
You also get an extract from one of the author's novels, another with a stepfather theme. While only a sample, it is more exciting than Sarah's Nude Photos....more
In this short collection, Burns Well does for the inspirational saying what he has elsewhere done for the fairy story. By turns cynical, defeatist andIn this short collection, Burns Well does for the inspirational saying what he has elsewhere done for the fairy story. By turns cynical, defeatist and sociopathic, these subversions of the old shopworn encouragements from self-help books and desk calendars provide plenty of bitter fun.
Here are some favourites :
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very real one."
"Even if you end up on the right track, you'll probably get run over by a train."
"The only true wisdom is knowing that you are an idiot and a failure."
"Happiness resides not in possessions, and not in gold, but in the man who has these things."
The only way to improve this book would be to turn it into a desk calendar illustrated with pictures of ugly animals....more
Jenna Zisk decides to make some quick cash by volunteering to be part of a scientific experiment. She is drugged and hooked up to a kind of user-generJenna Zisk decides to make some quick cash by volunteering to be part of a scientific experiment. She is drugged and hooked up to a kind of user-generated virtual reality machine. She can visit any location she wants. Instead of picking somewhere like Paris, as other participants have, she asks to go back in time to the Jurassic period and see some dinosaurs. All goes well until a T-Rex turns up. If it eats her, will she survive the dream? Because the machine is feeding off of her thoughts, she has to be careful what she thinks about. It's a pity the guy who strapped her into the machine was so sexy, leaving her feeling aroused, because now the T-Rex is getting horny, and she's thinking about how impossible it would be for sex to occur between this twelve foot carnivorous lizard and an ordinary young woman like herself, or would it? She really shouldn't have asked herself the question.
Dinosaur erotica is a thing. A novelty genre which got some innovator a bunch of sales and thus inspired a horde of copycats. This is the first example I've actually read, so I can't tell whether it is typical or a playful variation on the theme. I'll give the author the benefit of the doubt and presume the latter. The whole virtual-reality dream idea neatly sidesteps what I imagine is a major problem for dinosaur erotica generally - giving the dinosaur a motive for having sex with something as repulsive as a human.
The writing is sometimes a bit clumsy, but the story is told with an air of cheeky fun and revels in its own absurdity....more
I’ve been studying the writings of Jeremy Griffith for over 25 years. You may wonder why I would take such an interest in the writings of a man whoseI’ve been studying the writings of Jeremy Griffith for over 25 years. You may wonder why I would take such an interest in the writings of a man whose books I give one star ratings to. If his ideas are no good, why waste my time on them?
The truth is that I agree with much of what Griffith says and I’ve always felt that there is something in his theory which is essential to addressing humanity’s most serious problems. On the other hand, I think he is wrong in many ways. If he presented his theory as a theory to be assessed like any other, I would give his books five stars, because they are a passionate and original exploration of very deep issues. But he doesn’t present it as a theory. He claims that he is presenting the holy grail of liberating knowledge which all humanity has been striving towards since the dawn of human consciousness. Anyone who has dipped into his books or even read the blurbs on the back covers will know what I mean when I say he goes the hard sell. And he sometimes gets carried away when expressing his disagreement with others. He has labelled fellow biologist Edward O. Wilson “the anti-christ” and described the rejection of one of his articles by Scientific American : “…the most serious crime that could possibly be committed in the whole of humanity’s 2-million-year journey to enlightenment…” This kind of behaviour may lead many people to view Griffith as some random nut-case, but there are those for whom the combination of the self-hype and the fact that Griffith genuinely delves deep and acknowledges aspects of human psychology most of us would be more comfortable denying leads to an unwavering commitment to these ideas. So I value his writings as a catalyst for my own thinking, but have to rate his works with a single star because I believe that, while he has the best of intentions, the way he presents his ideas is wrong and dangerous.
If you want to know what his central theory is you are better off reading it here than trying to wade your way through his massive tome Freedom: The End of the Human Condition to which this booklet is intended to be an introduction.
The basic concept is that we have a genetic orientation to selfless behaviour which is what we experience as our conscience. Most other animals are genetically selfish. The change in our genetic orientation from selfish to selfless occurred through a process called “love indoctrination” whereby the mothers of our proto-human ancestors nurtured their infants for genetically selfish reasons, but to the infants it seemed like selflessness. Thus they were “indoctrinated” into the idea that selflessness is the meaning of life. Over many generations this orientation to selflessness became encoded in our genes. But, as our conscious mind developed, it needed to experiment with self-management, rather than blindly follow the guidance of the selfless instincts. When this led to us acting in ways which our instincts interpreted as selfish, they criticised us. Our conscious mind became insecure in the face of this criticism - we became angry (against the criticism), egotistical (always needing to assert our worth in the face of our instincts condemnation of us) and alienated (blocking out any aspects of reality which might seem to support the criticisms coming from our conscience.) Thus we had a loving cooperative beginning as a species (which we mostly retain an orientation to in our genes) and our dark side since then has been a psychological byproduct of the emergence of consciousness.
I’m willing to believe we had a cooperative beginning as a species and I definitely believe that our propensity for selfishness, competition and aggression is a psychological phenomenon. I also believe that the critical nature of idealism is the root cause of the psychological insecurity (or neurosis) which drives our dark side.
Where I disagree with Griffith is on the source of idealism. He sees it as something genetic, whereas I see it as a social phenomenon - a product of the conscious mind, not the instincts.
A clear distinction has to be made here between idealism and love. I don’t feel that Griffith makes this distinction and thus he goes very far wrong. He identifies our conscience with this genetic orientation, but at the same time he says that this genetic orientation is the source of our capacity for love and cooperativeness. The conscience is something which tries to control our behaviour by making us feel bad if we go against it. Love on the other hand cannot be forced. If it is not freely given then it isn’t love. Cooperation in a superficial sense can be forced. People can be made to cooperate. But this isn’t cooperation in the fullest sense of the word - to work with - they may be with us physically, but if there is compulsion then they will not be with us in the relational sense.
I have no problem with the idea that we have a genetic orientation to being loving and cooperative. We see these qualities in young children and we can often see the evidence that emotional disturbance of one kind or another lies behind deviation from such a nature. But, unlike the conscience, love is not dictatorial. In it’s purest form it is all-accepting and all-forgiving. The conscience is certainly not that.
It seems clear to me that the conscience is a part of the ego - the conscious thinking self - in which we store our learned moral principles. How else do we explain that what makes us feel guilty differs from person to person and culture to culture? If our conscience were genetic we would see no such diversity. Guilt can be understood as the sense of psychological pain which accompanies the withdrawal of self-acceptance.
I see no need for the theory of “love indoctrination”. Nature at base is integrative - competition occurs within a cooperative framework. The motivation for we animals is the pleasure principle - to seek that which makes us feel good and try to avoid what makes us feel bad. (In humans this gets very complicated because of our ability to make decisions based on predictions about the future, our psychological needs and our metaphysical belief systems.) For animals, good and bad feelings are the messengers for the genes. An animal which experiences maximised pleasure when mating with a healthy member of his species and is willing to compete for that pleasure may prove more fit in the process of natural selection. And a female member of a species who feels enough discomfort at the prospect of losing her infant to fight to protect it will also be likely to have an advantage. And where there is not enough food for everyone, those who are most motivated to compete will pass on their genes. But these animals compete when there is an advantage, in terms of achieving pleasure or avoiding suffering, in competing.
Griffith places a lot of emphasis on the bonobos as an example of what our cooperative past may have been like. Bonobos are peaceful, cooperative and matriarchal, while chimpanzees are more aggressive, competitive and patriarchal. The chimpanzees developed in an ecosystem where food was less plentiful. The bonobos spend a lot of their time rubbing genitals with each other fairly indiscriminately. Why would the bonobos not be cooperative and peaceful? Everyone has enough food. Living cooperatively means living in a peaceful supportive community and spending much of your time rubbing genitals. Where is the pleasure advantage in competition?
As for our ancestors, if they lived in an environment where there was plenty of food to go around, then the only source of competition would be mating. But would competing for mates in such an environment confer a significant evolutionary advantage? It would in a more hostile environment with a high infant mortality rate. There it would be a numbers game. But if most infants grew to adulthood, then environmental advantage would go to those who were best nurtured and thus healthiest. In this kind of ecological niche, genetic advantage would favour nurturing as it does with the bonobos. And there would be no genetic drive to compete which needed to be “indoctrinated” out of us. All that was needed was a space where competition was not advantageous. Maybe the chimpanzees too would like to be living cooperatively and spending their time rubbing genitals, but if there isn’t enough food to go around they have to stick with their less pleasant lifestyle.
So how did it all go wrong? I think Griffith is right that a conflict arose between the instincts and the intellect, but not in the way he thinks. If our instincts are to be loving and cooperative then they would have to be forgiving and uncritical. Forgiveness is essential to love and necessary if ongoing cooperation is to be facilitated. Idealism on the other hand is unforgiving and is a divisive influence. Idealism encourages us to judge ourselves or others against a standard which is, by definition unreachable. Ideality and reality are opposites, thus ideals can never be achieved in the real world. The ideals produce just the kind of response in the insecure ego that Griffith attributes to them. But they originate in the conscious mind, not in the instincts. They are a product of the conscious mind’s attempt to understand the world and manage it’s own behaviour.
How did we arrive at the concept of idealism? To have an idea of good and evil we would need something with which to contrast our loving cooperative behaviour. The behaviour of predatory animals would have provided that contrast. The role of protecting the tribe against them would have fallen to men as women needed to concentrate on nurturing the infants. In hunting against them we would have had to cultivate our own competitive and aggressive potential. While necessary, this would have had a disruptive effect on the group, something which the women would have had to try to control. So we have behaviour labelled “bad” and other behaviour labelled “good” and social pressure to restrain the former and cultivate the latter. A moral system. In time individuals would have begun second-guessing criticism. They would have internalised the moral system. They would have gained a conscience.
Of course this was necessary, but the problem is that idealism has a tendency to undermine self-acceptance. We end up feeling guilty about our transgressions and the resultant insecurity makes it harder for us to open up to our deeper loving nature. Our wounded ego becomes a bigger and bigger barrier to improving our behaviour. We become, as Griffith says, angry, egocentric and alienated.
Griffith likes to use his theory as a way of explaining the myth of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, but there are some aspects of that story which can be explained by what I have just said which he does not attempt to explain. Eve was the first to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and she was tempted to do so by a snake. If predatory animals were what led us to the origin of idealism, then that explains the snake. If women were the first ones to insist on a moral system, that explains how Eve ate first. And it was not simply the Tree of Knowledge (as Griffith often says in support of his theory that conscious thought in general was the key factor), but the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (i.e. knowledge of morality or idealism). We can quite safely use our minds to explore and experiment wherever we don’t arrive at hurtful self-criticism. It was not the search for knowledge which corrupted us, as Griffith claims, but the idealism which we played with along the way.
Griffith’s placing of idealism in the genes leads him to this absurdity : “…but we have never before been able to ‘heal our soul’, to truthfully explain to our original instinctive self or soul that our fully conscious, thinking self is good and not bad…” If our instinctive self resides in our genes, then how can we explain anything to it? How can genes listen and understand? But if the split is one which idealism has caused within our conscious mind, then a healing integrity of understanding is possible.
I could go on and on analysing and criticising Griffith’s attempt to explain the human condition, and I have done that elsewhere, but here I just wanted to deal with the central issue as all other failings proceed from there.
I care about Jeremy Griffith and his followers and I care what happens to the human race. My motivation is the pleasure principle. It would be pleasant for me to see the members of the World Transformation Movement liberated from the impasse caused by their support of a faulty theory. And it would be pleasant to live in a world where the human race has a chance to survive, whether they are a part of making that possible or not....more
Erika seems an unexceptional if highly competent middle-aged executive - the operations manager of her branch of MediaCore - but she has a secret. SheErika seems an unexceptional if highly competent middle-aged executive - the operations manager of her branch of MediaCore - but she has a secret. She loves reading erotic stories in which haughty women are humiliated and find themselves compelled to act like sluts, usually in front of an audience. She's divorced, her daughters have grown up and left home, and she hasn't had sex in ages. She feels plain and overweight. The ebooks are her only touch of spice. But one day she accidentally leaves her Kindle in a conference room. Charlie, a handsome young new recruit returns it to her. But did he look at what was on it? Just as she begins to feel sure that he didn't, he sends her a message which includes the sentence "Nice reading list, BTW." She meets with him and it becomes clear he wants to use what he has found out to his advantage. Is he going to blackmail her? What she doesn't suspect is that he may be set upon making her kinkiest erotic dreams come true.
There is a real tension in this story. How far will Charlie push things? How far will Erika go? Will her career be jeopardised? It is also very erotic. There is something about the humiliation scenario. Why would anyone want to be humiliated? But this isn't simply humiliation. It takes place within the context of sexual arousal in both parties. She may be afraid that her body is disgusting, but, as Charlie looks at it and tells her it is, he is clearly aroused by it. It is as if she moves through what is feared to find the erotic freedom that lies beyond. And being called a "whore" may be a put down, but is also permission to take as much erotic pleasure as she wants to. It is all about the breaking down of the walls of inhibition, about what you can't say and what you can't do. It is also about meeting needs. We know that Charlie wouldn't be behaving this way with someone who didn't like it. It's an exciting, edgy story, but one in which you will like the central character and feel good about the fact that she has found the appreciation she deserves, even if it is in a most unconventional way.
If you have this book on your Kindle, just be careful where you leave it....more
Air Pirates Funnies was an underground comic book which lasted only two issues before becoming the subject of an extended lawsuit by the Disney companAir Pirates Funnies was an underground comic book which lasted only two issues before becoming the subject of an extended lawsuit by the Disney company over copyright infringement, trademark infringement and unfair competition. The Air Pirates collective which produced the comic was founded by Dan O'Neill, and also included Shary Flenniken, Bobby London, Gary Hallgren, and Ted Richards. The main story which runs across both issues features Mickey and Minnie Mouse taking drugs and having sex while caught up in a spectacular adventure involving evil villains, aerial combat, zeppelins and a piano-playing King Kong. Apparently O'Neill was so keen to get sued by Disney that he had copies of his comic smuggled into a Disney board meeting by a board member's son. His philosophy was to keep drawing his parodies while losing cases and appealing them until such time as he would either be allowed to continue or thrown in prison. He even recruited some of his fellow artists to form The Mouse Liberation Front. In 1980, Disney agreed to drop all charges as long as the Air Pirates stopped infringing their copyrights. The two issues of Air Pirates Funnies can't be sold or republished.
This issue contains the following stories :
Big Mac "Another Tale of the Apocalypse" by Gary Halligren
A hippy sits and listens to depressing news blasting out of the television and the radio as his toddlers smoke dope and clown around in the background.
"Dirty Duck" by Bobby London
The adventures of a dirty old duck and his weevil butler. After being thrown out of a dirty book store for trying to remove the staples from a magazine Dirty Erazmus Duck tries to seduce Annie Rat by disguising himself as her music teacher, but Annie isn't as gullible as he takes her for, and Weevil tries to turn the situation to his own benefit.
Silly Sympathies by Dan O'Neill
After William Buckley Bug is fired for having sex with the boss's wife he sets off on the road. He falls for sexy June Bug and they are in the middle of a hot love session when along comes Deadwood Dick and lures June Bug away with alcohol. A cricket introduces Willie to another sexy female Lorna Jean. The only problem is that she's a centipede with fifty clitorises and Willie finds his love-making abilities seriously exhausted.
Dopin' Dan and Zeke Wolf by Ted Richards
Dopin' Dan is a dope-head equivalent of army comics like Mort Walker's Beetle Bailey and Zeke Wolf sends up the characters in Disney Three Little Pigs cartoons.
Keyhole Komix presents "As You Like It" by Gary Hallgren
This features Donad Duck as one of a pair of "nameless perverts". They are building a rickety stack of boxes from which to spy on Minnie Mouse in the bath.
Silly Sympathies presents The Mouse by Bobby London, Gary Hallgren, Dan O'Neill and Ted Richards
Mickey is bemoaning the fact that neither Minnie nor Daisy Duck will have sex with him when he is kidnapped and flown to the zeppelin headquarters of the Air Pirates. Minnie too is kidnapped and brought to the zeppelin. The first thing she does is to complain about the fact that Mickey gave her Daisy's VD. Her resentment doesn't last long though and soon the two mice are engaging in some sixty-nine action, just as they get dropped out of the bottom of the zeppelin. It looks like they are now over Skull Island, as Minnie is snatched way to a pterodactyl's nest and Mickey interrupts King Kong's piano practice. To be continued...
Merton of the Movement by Bobby London
A hippy turns into a Howard Hughes style recluse after winning $10,000 in the sweepstakes.
Dirty Duck would turn into a long running strip in National Lampoon and later Playboy, but the real highlight here is the Air Pirates story. It really captures the feel of the vintage adventure comics but with plenty of dirty humour. There is just something irresistible about making Disney characters do dirty things. Just Google Wally Wood's The Disneyland Memorial Orgy.
The first issue of Cherry had input from other artists, but here it's all Larry Welz.
In Pool Cue, Cherry comes home from cheerleader practice, has a sThe first issue of Cherry had input from other artists, but here it's all Larry Welz.
In Pool Cue, Cherry comes home from cheerleader practice, has a shower and then seduces the pool guy. Perhaps it should have been called Pool Queue as it turns out she's not the only one who has him in her sights.
In "Best Friends" Cherry's friend Monica uses a spurious accusation of disloyalty as an excuse to subject her to some Sadean sessions on her expensive new "exercise equipment".
Le's Party! sees Cherry and her hot MILF mother competing over boys at a sex and drugs party.
Down and Dirty features police officer Cherry Coptart (aka "Dirty Cherry") as she goes under cover as a prostitute in order to help rid society of a rapist and serial killer.
In A Personal Message from Cherry she tells us all about her relation with God while doing a slow strip.
These longer stories are interspersed with one-pagers. A look at Cherry's lingerie. A workout session concentrating on tightening up for sex. Space adventurer Cherry getting gang-banged by Ewok-like critters. A military-themed fashion show. A brief appearance by Cherry's little sister Cinnamon who, being underage, quickly gets censored when she tries to take her top off. Sister Cherry, the sexy nun ("Well, if I can't save your soul... - can I have your body for a while?"). And a look at what the cover of the comic might look like if it were Japanese.
This issue is as sexy, provocative and tasteless as you would want, with plenty of variety to keep it exciting. ...more
Billy Brenton wants to learn about photography, having been given a new camera for his eighteenth birthday, so he heads off to his local library on aBilly Brenton wants to learn about photography, having been given a new camera for his eighteenth birthday, so he heads off to his local library on a quiet Tuesday afternoon. When he opens a book on the history of photography and sees a vintage photo of a gorgeous naked woman, his hormones get the better of him and he decides to take advantage of the fact that nobody is around in this back corner of the stacks. But it turns out that he isn’t the only one with an interest in photography. Ms. Maddox, the crabby sixty-five year old head librarian snaps a photo of him engaging in an act of public lewdness. She insists that he follow her to her office, where she will present him with an ultimatum. At first Billy has his reservations, but Ms. Maddox feels he is overdue to lose his virginity, and he certainly has no trouble getting an extension. The sight and feel of Ms. Maddox soft and droopy breasts makes the relevant part of Billy’s anatomy anything but soft and droopy.
Francis Gonz has produced another funny filthy wrinkly romp. I can’t say I have any particular fetishistic fondness for senior citizens, but there is something life-affirming about these tales of dirty old women gone wild. Here Billy learns the lesson that you can’t judge someone by their public persona. There may be a soft heart lurking behind that withering over-the-glasses glare. The cold front may be melted by the warm glow radiating from within her granny panties at the prospect of sex with a randy teenager. It’s heartening to think that even the generation gap could be bridged by some horny hijinks....more
Poppy is a budding erotica writer whose husband Sean benefits from her cultivation of sexy fantasies. But they are short of a cash and need a border.Poppy is a budding erotica writer whose husband Sean benefits from her cultivation of sexy fantasies. But they are short of a cash and need a border. Just as they are almost giving up hope of finding someone suitable, Lucy arrives. She seems perfect, but she nervously tells them there is one thing about her that may change their minds. She’s a nudist. She explains that she will wear a robe when they are around out of concern for their sensitivities, but wants to be naked when alone. This doesn’t seem to be a problem, but when Poppy accidentally finds out a little bit more about the research Lucy is doing into nudity and sexual excitement, the seeds are sown for some saucy fun for the three of them.
If you like affectionately playful erotic stories this one’s for you. It manages some surprises along its path to the sweet and raunchy fun it promises....more