For the first time in my life I have been printed about a topic that is not about cricket.
It will surprise few people to know that it is about porn.
The post, titled “the ten things that have always confused me about pornography“, was one of two posts I entered in a new London enterprise called the blog paper.
The blog paper is a free London paper given out made entirely of blog posts.
I had no cricket posts that I thought would get voted in, so instead I chose some of my other work, and fuck me if I didn’t get one in.
The blog paper, which is designed to bring blogs from online to offline is also available online, and you can see my work on page 14, under the digital sex image.
It is a big deal the first time you cross over, and I’m pretty happy with it happening just as I start working on my first non cricket project.
Here is just a small touch of the confusing porn article:
“6. Why have I never found a genre of porn that involves a woman complaining drearily about how the guy fucks her? There would be a huge market for this. Sort of like sadomasochism, but more domestic and monotonous, “You’re not doing it right, hurry up X factor is on soon, we need milk, no I haven’t cum, I’m thinking of your brother…” It would also give the actresses a chance to really branch out and create a real character.
7. Why aren’t dick types classified? Surely part of pornography should be classifying dick types, I would think that men really just want to see a dick that looks like theirs. There should be a grading system circ or un-circ, skin tone, hairiness, ball sack shape and size etc. Otherwise it is just lucky dip.”