Creative Sexpression

21/04/2026

19/04/2026

"New study links watching TikTok “thirst traps” to lower relationship trust and satisfaction..

New research shows that the way people interact with attractive strangers on TikTok can impact the trust and satisfaction in their romantic relationships. The research showed that watching or liking “thirst traps” tends to harm a relationship, especially if the people in the videos look physically different from a person’s actual partner.

Thirst traps are videos specifically created to highlight an attractive person’s body or elicit s*xual interest from viewers. Because the algorithm pushes content based on a user’s viewing habits, the continuous presence of attractive alternatives on this feed might signal a wavering commitment to a current partner.

Algorithms are highly effective at facilitating new connections for single people looking to expand their social networks. Yet for people in committed relationships, these same algorithms can introduce unwanted temptations by constantly suggesting attractive alternatives.

Researchers wanted to see if people could pick up on these digital signals and how these perceptions might alter the quality of their relationship. Past studies have looked at how individuals ignore or devalue attractive alternatives to protect their relationships. Few studies have explored how one partner’s view of the other partner’s digital habits changes relationship dynamics.

The researchers also found that engaging with attractive people on TikTok was negatively associated with relationship quality, depending on who was in the videos. When a partner actively liked or followed attractive users who looked physically dissimilar to the participant, the participant reported lower trust and lower relationship satisfaction.

Even passive engagement, like simply watching videos of dissimilar attractive people when they popped up on the screen, was linked to reduced relationship satisfaction. The scientists suggest this might occur because seeing a partner engage with a very different physical “type” challenges a person’s assumptions about what their partner finds ideal. This physical discrepancy can introduce new insecurities into the relationship.

“Having a partner that is actually not tempted by attractive TikTok alternatives is what matters for protecting trust,” Alexandra E. Black said. “This is particularly the case when perceived partner commitment might be wavering, or a person has doubts about their partner’s commitment. A person actively engaging with TikTok alternatives (e.g., following their accounts, liking their videos), however, is harmful to relationship quality (i.e., satisfaction and trust), especially if the alternative doesn’t look like their current partner.”

While this study provides evidence about the intersection of social media and romantic commitment, there are a few potential misinterpretations and limitations to consider. The study relied on self-reported estimates of TikTok use, which might not perfectly reflect a person’s actual screen time or viewing habits. The research was also observational at a single point in time, meaning the scientists cannot definitively prove that watching TikTok videos directly causes relationship issues."

Eric W. Dolan

Art-Tim Mossholder

18/04/2026

18/04/2026

Ah look -the advertising war on human vulnerability that teaches us that to be loved is to be 'pristine', and to be 'used' is to be 'useless'. 🤮

This 1930s Lux ad is a masterclass in weaponised domestic insecurity. It effectively institutionalised attachment anxiety as a business model, convincing women that their only path to safety was a 24/7 performance of physical perfection. It required them to prioritise a husband’s 'visual comfort' over their own neurological and physical burnout. And it teaches men that intimacy is something he buys or deserves based on his pay cheque, rather than something he builds through communication.

To us, this ad seems laughable. But in the 1930s, a woman's survival was legally and financially tied to her husband. Back then, a woman generally could not:

Keep her job: The 'Marriage Bar' meant being fired the day she wed.

Open a bank account: Not without a husband or father’s co-signature.

Own property: Buying a home or getting a mortgage was effectively impossible.

Access contraception: Birth control was often illegal or 'obscene'.

Report marital r**e: Legally, 'consent' was considered permanent once married.

Guarantee custody: Fathers were often the sole legal guardians.

In a world with no rights, 'dish-pan hands' weren't just a cosmetic issue; they were a signal that the 'product' (the wife) was wearing out. A 'worn-out' woman was a woman at risk of poverty. Lux was deliberately inducing permanent hyper-vigilance, forcing women to treat their own bodies as 'triggers' for the total collapse of their social safety net.

The Psychological Formula behind the ad goes like this-- Threat, Shame, and Saviour.

The Threat 😱: Lux claims the male libido is so fragile and visual centric it can be extinguished by rough skin. This insults women by reducing them to their skin texture, and insults men by suggesting they are incapable of deep, resilient love.

The Shame 😟: 'Dish-pan hands' was a manufactured pathology. It took the proof of back-breaking, unpaid labour... scrubbing with lye and corrugated washboards(this was a decade or two before washing machines were in homes!) ... and turned it into a romantic failing. You had to be the Labourer by day, but the Muse by night.

The Saviour 🛟: Lux sells 'marital insurance' in a cardboard box. It frames a soap product as a 'romantic guardian', bypassing actual relationship skills like empathy or respect.

The S3xual Shut-Down
In s3x therapy, I talk a lot about 'spectatoring'... the moment you’re so busy worrying about how you look that you can't actually experience pleasure.

This ad forced women into a 24/7 state of spectatoring. You cannot have a fulfilling s*x life when your body is a 'problem' to be solved and an object to be viewed and judged rather than a vessel for connection. If you’re hiding your hands under the tablecloth because you’re terrified your husband will leave you, you aren't in the headspace for intimacy. You’re in a state of performance anxiety.

We are still deconstructing a system that taught us love is a transaction that can be cancelled if the 'merchandise' gets a bit scuffed. I still see the echoes of this trauma in women in my private practice who feel they have to 'earn' love by being perfect, exhausted by relentless self-policing where they view their own vulnerability as a liability rather than a bridge to connection.

I see men in my practice trapped by an inherited 'Aesthetic Fixation' that stops them from experiencing genuine intimacy. They’ve been conditioned to believe that their role in a relationship is to be the 'Buyer' and their partner is the 'Service Provider.' They don’t have to do the hard work of emotional intimacy if they stay at arms length judging the 'quality' of the ornament.'

Real intimacy is in the messy, lived-in reality of two people who realise that 'scuffed' skin is just proof of a life actually shared.

True partnership is the radical act of being fully seen (callouses, exhaustion, and all) and choosing to stay because you love a person, not a product

My questions for you--
When I notice myself judging my partner’s appearance or 'utility', can I pause and ask: 'What part of my own vulnerability am I afraid to look at right now?'

Can you practice looking at yourself through a lens of Compassion rather than Consumption? What happens when you stop treating your body like a product you're trying to sell back to your partner?

18/04/2026

Circa 1909.

13/04/2026

Fairy s**t originates centuries ago..

The fairies in erotic "fae" romantasy are not cute or benevolent. They are dangerous, shape-shifting beings, exactly what they were in historic folklore, according to a new book.

13/04/2026

For 22 years, Anthony Venn-Brown was told his s*xuality made him ‘broken’.

He endured so-called “treatments”, exorcisms and programs designed to suppress who he is.

Today, he’s one of Australia’s most powerful voices against conversion practices, sharing his story publicly - including recently on ABC’s Compass - to expose the harm these practices cause and push for change.

Anthony’s advocacy helped to finally secure a ban in NSW in 2024, joining Victoria, ACT and SA, along with Queensland which has a partial ban in health settings

In WA, the state government committed to banning conversion practices back in 2022. Four years on, there’s still no law.

In recent months, we've seen anti-LGBTIQA+ flyers distributed in letterboxes across Perth, escalating threats against trans people, and increased reports of harassment.

When it comes to protecting our community, WA is falling behind.

It’s time to act.

Sign Rainbow Futures WA petition via the link in the comments!

Ending Conversion Practices WA

13/04/2026

This is how popular faerie-themed romantasy novels echo historic folklore: https://bbc.in/4teUTwS

07/04/2026

🤣