Wet Spots

· Kudos to USC professor and self-described "bon vivant and buttkicker" Diana York Blaine for putting academic theory into action and posting topless pictures of herself on her personal website as a means of illustrating "how scandal functions both as a reactionary tool and as a mode of resistance to such conservative attempts to control behavior". To which we add: Nice rack! (dianablaine.com + avn.com; don't miss the comment threads here and here)

· Meanwhile, too many keggers combined with aggressive female classmates (and topless instructors?) are apparently causing a rash of impotence on college campuses. Yes fellas, we realize it's very scary when a woman actually offers to have sex with you, but there's still an excellent chance that she won't eat you alive when it's over like those bugs you saw in biology class. (washingtonpost.com)

· The domain Sex.net was sold at auction this week for $450,000, a far cry from the $14 million (and endless legal battles) generated by Sex.com in March. Then again, it's the Internet and it's sex, so you can't really go wrong either way. (xbiz.com)

· An aspiring broadcast journalist unlocks the secret to a successful TV career: Craigslist, a sugar daddy, and healthy size C knockers. "Hey buddy, today's important stories from around the globe and my eyes are up here!" (craigslist.org, via newsbusters.org)

· In today's research study that we find totally hard to believe, some say hiring beautiful models to sell your product can actually backfire, costing you credibility and sales. "It's so sexist and so cliché that you have to use gorgeous women to sell beer," says the ad wizard who invented the Budweiser frogs. Sorry, but we still prefer our beer ads the old fashioned way—with catfights! (denverpost.com + youtube.com)

· While some folks are trying to figure out why prostitutes charge what they do, sex workers in Australia can now deduct the cost of toys, lingerie, and other tool of the trade on their tax returns. Their customers, on the other hand, may have a little trouble explaining the $4,000 in "lap-related entertainment expenditures"; if your wife didn't buy it, why should the government? (abcnews.go.com + Yahoo! News)

* * * * *

Previously: Morning Wood Archives/Wet Spots Archives