Monday, October 11, 2010
The (Near) Future of Sex?
Imagine a world where people couldn't masturbate.
I'm talking about men and women here, remember, because women do it, too, whether they are as forward about it or not.
So, in this fantastical world that may only be two years in our future, imagine that, for whatever reason, there is now no masturbation in our genetic coding. Anything other than vaginal/anal/oral intercourse is not going to get the job done no matter how hard you try, so there is no reason to ever think it could happen.
The behavioral changes resulting from this slight reinterpretation (or evolutionary progression/regression depending on your point of view) of the human being would be stunning.
Viz:
- There would be a lot more sex happening. Women could not defer to their hand or vibrator, men could not defer to their hand or Pocket Pussy TM. Both sexes, for various reasons, would be more inclined to actual interpersonal interaction of the sexual variety, which is a truly undebatable result of this restriction, if you ask me.
- A lot more straight guys would be involved in gay sex--since they might get an undeniable urge at some point, be unable or unwilling to pick up a woman for a quickie, and would be unable to masturbate, remember--although my guess is that most straight crossovers would be in the "Only Blow Jobs, Thanks" category, and might even pay extra for some program that fakes men into women with digital wigs and whatnot (most helpful when paired with squinting), since it will happen often enough over a lifetime, let's be honest.
- A digital solution to the "I Can't Masturbate So What Do I Do" problem would emerge almost overnight, since computer geeks are out there and we all know the necessary technology exists at this moment for a virtual sex program.
A virtual sex program? What? Is this some kind of Strange Days meets laser tag meets sexting meets yeah-right-like-that-will-ever-exist bullshit?
Well...it actually could exist, it could be called "Pandora's Box," and hear me out:
A man puts some kind of sensor-equipped sleeve over his penis that is connected to his computer and a woman connects her specially-designed vibrator to her computer, they connect over the internet, and they're off.
Every thrust and clench is made digital, transmitted over the internet, and felt in near-real-time. Piggyback this onto a program like iChat or gChat, and tell me you don't have a near-sex experience with somebody--sound, sight, and sexual sensation.
Some of the long-term effects of this revolutionary leap would be as follow:
- Women will have more sex. Every time a woman would ordinarily reach for her vibrator or rely on her fingers, she would have the option of contacting some male friend of hers, ex-boyfriend of hers, or a total stranger for a virtual-sex session instead. Do you actually think she wouldn't? Disease-free, semi-private (he's not in your home, in your bed, there in the morning, etc), almost-not-really-cheating-since-it-isn't-real, etc...you have to admit this would be an extremely attractive option if a girl could do this instead of whatever she does now.
- Men will have more sex. Every time a man wants to masturbate, he would instead have the option of contacting a female friend, ex-girlfriend, or stranger for a little semi-illicit virtual sex session instead of being alone. He would know exactly who to call, and one of them would eventually say yes. In a pinch, he could always call a guy he knows and play make-believe.
- Cheating as we know it will splinter into a million shades of gray. Is it cheating to use this program? Is it more like cheating if it's an ex-significant-other instead of just a friend? Will fuck-friend finally be a term that makes it into the dictionary? Is it better to have a guy or girl virtually cheat than to actually cheat? Is virtually cheating okay, since it's safe and virtual? Will there be caps placed on the amount of virtual cheating, in order to maintain status quo in the relationship?
- Threesomes and foursomes will skyrocket in popularity once they can be accomplished virtually. Think about it--if it ever starts to feel weird, you just turn the unit off and do whatever you want to do. It pretty much sells itself to that enormous chunk of the population that is currently on the fence regarding group sex.
- Sure, some people will abuse this capability and go off the deep end, spending 20 hours a day with some digital-capture attachment on their dicks, trolling the internet looking for any possible willing partner, but that is to be expected. There are always freaks around who do what they're not supposed to do and skew the data. Your average consumer, meanwhile, would still benefit from this enormously, as it is something that will be a godsend whenever one member of the couple has to travel, whenever people date long-distance, whenever people are just too shy to get it done in person, or whenever people might otherwise go out and date-rape or rape somebody, etc.
- Whoa, yeah--I pulled out the rape card. If people couldn't masturbate, there would be more rapes. That, I feel, is a tragic but inarguable point. Many of the potential-rapists out there today would jump off the fence and start getting into trouble once we removed masturbation as an alternative. But if we come back to the real world for a second, where masturbators are plentiful, and then add this revolutionary new program (Pandora's Box) into the mix, then what we have here is a virtual way to reduce incidences of rape. If some guy could get lucky with a random acquaintance or prank call a girl in the phonebook who's willing to virtually fuck him because she's bored or just horny or whatever, he is less likely to go out there and actually rape a girl. It may not drastically reduce the number of rapes, but if it even reduced that number by one it would be worth it.
Now, whether or not we ultimately get into a David-Foster-Wallacean situation--where people purchase realistic-looking digital representations of themselves that are way hotter than they should be or of a different sex or whatever (from freelancers at Pixar?)--let's just remember that while this potential development is fascinating from a philosophical/pyschological standpoint and full of further economic opportunity, it is also pretty much irrelevant to the conversation at hand.
The fact of the matter is that people who want to wear masks will be attracted to this, as will people who have no need for masks but won't ask too many questions for fear of the answers. When virtual sex becomes fairly commonplace, asking a partner whether their digital representation is real would be like asking your girlfriend today if her eyelashes are real--you won't even bother cuz you could never be sure you're getting a straight answer, so what's the point?
The gay men of today (who have iPhones) have Grindr...what will the gay AND straight people (who have iPhones and/or computers) have tomorrow?
The gays led us to all the trendy loft districts, all the trendy fashion updates...why not to all the trendy means of sexual gratification?
Why not jump into the endgame right away? I know we can do it and it'll be a beautiful slow-build with a seemingly infinite lifespan, add-ons, apps, accessories, avatars, additional sensory receptors...
Have I sold you on this yet? If not, then I don't think you are thinking clearly and I want you to forget you ever read this. If so, let's talk investment stake and get this thing off the ground, hit up Sean Parker for some extra money, etc.
_
Saturday, October 9, 2010
The Hottest Waste of Time in Years!
Correct Answer: No manner. I cannot think of one possible reason why somebody would ever want an image to show less skin in order to increase arousal. The best possible matte to place on either of the images above would be one shaped exactly the size of the bathing suit--no more, no less--but that would be a complete waste of time, as those parts of her body are already covered by a bathing suit.
Answer Its Creator Wishes Was Correct: Every way, dude! Or at least in enough ways to make the purchase of his app that 'shittifies' otherwise titillating photos/cartoons worth a minimum of ninety-nine cents. Look at the bubbles! You can move them around to cover up her legs and shit! Awesome! I totally need to viral this shit on the Twitterne for major cool-dude pointst! [air guitar]
Here's how this totally fun app works, dudes and dudettes:
When you upload a photo of a swimsuit-clad figure, the program applies a transparent layer that you can manipulate using the iPhone's touch screen. You can poke holes--bubbles--in the surface of the transparent layer, opening up patches of skin while keeping clothed areas hidden. You can drag the bubbles around with your finger and resize them by pinching. When you're done, the swimsuit should be completely covered and the exposed areas of skin should imply nudity. After you save your work, you can share it over email, Facebook, Twitter and Flickr.In other words, you have to actually do WORK to ruin swimsuit photos for no reason, after paying for the privilege.
(courtesy HuffPo)
If this is the direction we are headed as a tech-addled global community, a cave on an island somewhere--the kind where people never hear about world wars ending--is sounding better every second.
_
Friday, October 1, 2010
Rivers Cuomo is Officially a Jackass
If the results of Rivers Cuomo's ill-fated decision to use an equation he distilled after studying the music of numerous successful songwriters to replicate infinite variations of the perfect pop song weren't bad enough--the Green album, Maladroit, Make Believe, the Red album, Raditude (really?)--trixie pixie sellout Cuomo just shot the moon with his latest aural turd, Hurley.
In case you were wondering, yes--the album IS named after the morbidly obese guy on Lost, yes--he IS featured on the cover, and yes--he DID sing a duet with Rivers onstage at some sort of asshole convention in Los Angeles.
I feel no need to ruminate on the wherefores of Rivers' decision, since I don't give a shit what stupid reason he had, but I do think it is important for everybody out there to realize, if they haven't already, that the man behind Pinkerton and the Blue album, two of the greatest rock albums of the last 20 years, has officially become an irredeemable, unapologetic jackass.
You have been warned.
Also, I feel the need to warn you of the following forthcoming turds from the Cuomo camp:
- Pinkerton, their best album and the last one worth a damn (recorded 14 years ago) is set for an unnecessary re-release (same music, but with new fan art! probably! OMG!).Noticing a trend here, folks?
- A third solo album--The Pinkerton Years--is also in the works.
[Puke]
_
Friday, June 4, 2010
Huey, Dewey, Louie, Scrooge, and Gandalf
It's pretty amazing this kid (what is he, 16?) can so effortlessly imitate the alcohol/cigarette/time-ravaged booming voice of Sir Ian McKellen (who, btw, has his own website).
Hollywood entertainment conglomerates must be relieved to know that should Sir Ian happen to meet his maker during the filming of a movie (The Hobbit 2?), some computer geeks and this kid's voice will ensure that nobody in the audience will notice.
Come to think of it--this might just add another 50-60 years to McKellen's lengthy career. Animated movies would be a snap and live-action would just require a green-masked body double and a slight increase in the visual-effects budget.
Hmmm...I wonder how Sir Ian feels about suddenly becoming so eminently replaceable...
_
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Monday, December 21, 2009
I Can See the Future

And in that future, some punk 5th grader will point his iPhone at the smart kid and an alarm will sound:
Nerd-alert! Nerd-alert!The smart, awkward kid will turn red in the face. If he's lucky the teacher will come over to intervene, but the punk will immediately shift the blame.
"What? I didn't say it--Google Goggles did! And it's never wrong!"Of course, it will be a customized Google Goggles, with various messages attached to pictures the punk takes of everybody he knows ("Well, Miranda, I don't know what to tell you, but it says you're the girl who's going to blow me in the back of the bus today..."), but the teacher doesn't need to know that.
What is Google Goggles, you ask? Well, it is this:
The world, like the World Wide Web before it, is about to be hyperlinked. Soon, you may be able to find information about almost any physical object with the click of a smartphone.This vision, once the stuff of science fiction, took a significant step forward this month when Google unveiled a smartphone application called Goggles. It allows users to search the Web, not by typing or by speaking keywords, but by snapping an image with a cellphone and feeding it into Google’s search engine.
How tall is that mountain on the horizon? Snap and get the answer. Who is the artist behind this painting? Snap and find out. What about that stadium in front of you? Snap and see a schedule of future games there.
Goggles, in essence, offers the promise to bridge the gap between the physical world and the Web.
(courtesy NYTimes.com)
Although I can certainly see benefits to this application/database, if used to augment a normal education/existence, there is also something disconcerting about it.
Thanks to word processors, hardly anybody knows how to spell these days. Thanks to cell phones, nobody remembers phone numbers or even writes them down. Thanks to GPS, most people have no idea where they are going in their own hometown.
In a few more generations of smart phones, or at least in a few more generations of users, many people will have in their pockets a consistent excuse to never know anything, to retain nothing, to depend on their phone as a replacement brain.
Are we becoming too dependent on technology? Will some evil mastermind slowly fuck over humanity by hacking into the Google database and subtly creating an alternate reality, biding his time before shutting down our outsourced brain and taking over a new world populated by blithering idiots suddenly unable to navigate their own subdivision, call each other, or differentiate between an orange and a hand grenade? Will people in the future see reality like the Keanu Reeves in The Matrix, but none of it will make any sense?
I'd like to say that this is an absurd notion--in league with my daydream that some deviously clever Luddite is behind the emergence of fully-keyless automobiles, as part of a brilliant plan to freeze them all in place one fateful day and show us the error of our ways-- but the annals of history overfloweth with reasons to be wary of evil men bent on world domination, the consolidation of information, and over-dependence on technology.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens. Meanwhile, I grow more uncomfortable with the realities made possible by the clever and efficient folks at Google.
Monday, November 23, 2009
AOL Not Done Hemorrhaging Money Quite Yet
AOL--once worth $164 billion only nine years ago when they bought Time Warner--is now worth a relatively meager $5.7 billion, loses 200,000 subscribers a month, and is getting unceremoniously kicked out of the Time Warner fold on December 9th, six years after the AOL was dropped from AOL Time Warner after a $99 billion loss in one year.Despite the fact that things have only been looking down for AOL, they assure you they are still relevant.
Seriously! Just because everybody who has an AOL account is over the age of 45 and thinks AOL is the internet does not mean they can't compete with Google. I mean...they just have so many unique products to offer...like...uhm...web advertising and stuff.
Aware they needed a massive directional shift, they recently brought in a former Google executive to turn things around, handed out millions to Madison Avenue ad/research firms, and decided that on December 9th their new logo will look like this:
What more could they possibly need, right? Careful not to blink--you might miss their instant, meteoric rise to the top of the technology industry.In case you are an idiot and don't get it, let the overpaid AOL peeps explain:
Man, do those folks at Leo Burnett, Wolff Olins, and AOL know how to milk money out of a dying cow! Maybe they would do a more thorough, effective job if their salaries actually depended on the performance of the company?"The period in the logo was added to suggest “confidence, completeness,” Ms. Wilson said, by declaring that “AOL is the place to go for the best content online, period.”
Mr. Armstrong said he liked to describe the period as “the AOL dot” because “the dot is the pivot point for what comes after AOL,” whether it is e-mail, Web sites or coming offerings that will “surprise people.”
The constantly changing images behind the logo are also intended to elicit surprise, said Ms. Wilson and Jordan Crane, creative director at Wolff Olins New York.
“It’s a mix of do-it-yourself and high production values, crazy stuff and elegant stuff,” Mr. Crane said, “simple and engaging and bizarre — all the things the Internet is.”
(courtesy NYTimes.com)
But what do I know--I'm (sadly?) not in the bullshit business and I didn't lose $16 billion in the first three months of this year...I got no cred!
_
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Why Did This Take So Long?

A new, rival PC operating system is finally in the works, courtesy of Google, whose desire to take over the world will once again make it better. For now...
Did nobody else think they could make a better operating system than noted dinosaur Windows? Really? It can't be that hard--just rip off most of your ideas from Apple, throw in some user-unfriendliness, and voila!
Now can somebody release a secret video of Bill Gates dropping F-bombs while filling his pants please?
_
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Rosa Parks Is A Lot Like A Malicious, Omnipotent Virus

Sorry, PC users--nine million of you are carrying a worm on your computer that could do just about anything and cannot be stopped.
For all of you out there unable to get a handle on the gravity of this situation, imagine instead this comparable, if dumbed-down, scenario:
Alien space ships land on top of nine million buildings across America. Each mysterious, impregnable ship contains a small worm that slithers out unnoticed one day, joins up with the other 8,999,999 little worms, and forms a giant laser-shooting, atom-bomb-shitting, fabulously wealthy, indestructible Voltron space worm that even Arnold Schwarzenegger cannot defeat.

Well, that's what I might compare the situation to, anyway, were I so inclined; others aren't quite as talented, intelligent, or handsome as I am:
“Yes, we are working on it, as are many others,” said one botnet researcher who spoke on the grounds that he not be identified because of his plan. “Yes, it’s illegal, but so was Rosa Parks sitting in the front of the bus.” (courtesy nytimes.com)Hmmm...is it? I suppose it could be, if the master villain behind this worm scheme is doing all this crazy bullshit in the name of advancing human rights, but I really doubt this is the case.
Or does Mr. Anonymous Botnet-Researcher know something we don't?
Perhaps we should arrest him, probe him, insert a microchip into his brain for no reason, and then ask him what he knows about the benevolent goals of the enemy.
If that doesn't work, let's put Bruce Willis on the case.

_










