Home / General / How Much Sex is Acceptable for Google?

How Much Sex is Acceptable for Google?



Above: Google approved Gilded Age courting chair.


So evidently images from Gilded Age medical journals of what are today known as vibrators are too risque for Google, so horrible that LGM is threatened by a company that has pledged to never be evil. You can see the offending image here. You can understand how it would be considered too scary for grandma. Note that no one in 1904 thought of the Chattanooga Vibrator as a sexual toy. It provided medical relief for neurasthenic women, replacing doctors who hated doing this service manually. Of course, orgasms gave these women relief, but again, this is not seen as sexual at the time. But it’s too sexy and scary today.

So I have some questions. First, is this too risque for Google?


What you see above is a robotic butt that helps train medical students to conduct prostate exams. In other words, there is hardly any difference between this and the Chattanooga Vibrator, especially because the above image makes me want to stick my finger up someone’s ass. See, this is why we can’t have anything having to do with the medicine or the human body available on the internet. Won’t somebody think about the children?

And what about history? Isn’t the past full of things like the Chattanooga Vibrator that we need protection from? Such as medieval cats eating a dick?


Now that I know this image exists, I want to commit bestiality with a cat. Or at least trade it a fish for that penis it has in its mouth, I’m not really sure here.

And doesn’t it seem to you that these early 20th century intracervical and intrauterine pessaries make you realize that people sometimes have sex and that this knowledge must be suppressed by our overlords at Google in order that little Bobby doesn’t get weird dreams at night?


In fact, as this World War II poster suggests, it’s probably best to keep anything having to do with women or women’s bodies off the internet. She might infect you, be it your cock or your brain.


For that matter, we need to repress the knowledge that men in the 18th century may have visited brothels. Our Founding Fathers conformed precisely to the moral standards of modern conservatism and if they didn’t we have to say they did.


In conclusion, I’d like to thank Google for serving as the moral deciders of the internet. I can’t imagine what harm seeing a medical image of a woman receiving a medical procedure caused 21st century people. If I was in control of this website, I’d ban me from the entire internet for my smut and filth. I have sullied LGM and I have sullied America. And I hope to do it again tomorrow.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • How Much Sex is Acceptable for Google?

    JenBob is not going to fuck you, Erik.

  • I think VD is the least of that woman’s problems. She is a giant disembodied head. How does one get busy with a giant disembodied head?

    Somewhere, Dr. Bimler has felt a chill.

    • tsam

      A disturbance in the Force

      • rea

        If you get Vox Day, you can’t beat the Axis . . .

  • Todd

    Google will point out that you have Freudian slipped yourself into revealing your nefarious agenda. “Prostrate” exam? That dog will not hunt, Loomis. Everybody stays on their feet in the AdSense world, or there is hell to pay!

  • tsam

    Are they trying to trade a fish for the penis? I note that the cat is having none of it. Cats love penis.

    • Snarki, child of Loki

      If I had a cat like that, I’d name it Bloody Bill Kristol.

  • dp

    Erik Loomis, Pervert Historian.

    • Ahuitzotl

      all histeryans are perverts

  • sparks

    What, no horse castration tools?

  • Murc

    Aww, look at that dog in the first one!

    Who is a good boy? You are!

    • KmCO

      I didn’t even notice the dog at first, and now I’m dying of furry cuddle withdrawal.

  • mds

    Note that no one in 1904 thought of the Chattanooga Vibrator as a sexual toy.

    Is “no one” a bit strong? I would think that someone was able to figure it out. Despite our stereotypes of Victorian / Edwardian times, there were still women who apparently managed to enjoy sex. Did none of them respond to the vibrator craze by going “Uh huh” knowingly?

    • Well, to be precise, no one in the scientific community or evidently in the middle and upper classes. What happened though was that with the rise of silent film you began to see silent film pornography. These vibrators were used in those films. That made them indecent and they then disappeared from the market.

      • Lee Rudolph

        MPG or it didn’t happen.

        • KmCO

          Yep. Curiosity is killing the cat with a dick in its mouth.

      • tsam

        Have you seen the movie “Hysteria”? It centered around the invention of the dildo as a treatment for what they called hysteria back in those times. Great cast, great movie. Two dildos up.

        [ETA] Incidentally, it stars Maggie Gyllenhaal, before she was too old to date crusty old men.

        • Captain Bringdown

          I presume you mean the invention of the vibrator. The invention of the dildo goes back somewhat further.

          • Lee Rudolph

            the dildo goes back somewhat further.

            Well, it can (as perhaps suggested by the graphic accompanying your link).

          • tsam

            Ayyyy, that’s right. He motorized the toy in the movie–got my toys mixed up.

        • jeer9

          Agreed. Well worth seeing.

          Still, this is just the sort of intransigent post that compensates for all of Loomis’ other rhetorical failures.

          Carry on, sir.

      • SamInMpls

        The documentary American Grindhouse notes that basically the reverse happened after the code began to be rigidly enforced. As they tell it, in the 1940’s there weren’t that many independent theaters that would show exploitation films. The filmmakers were using pretexts like morality tales and education as covers to avoid getting shutdown. At some point however the gimmicks began to crowd out the more prurient content and they ended up making stuff like Mom and Dad (1945) and Because of Eve (1948) which showed an actual baby being delivered. They point out this wasn’t something most men in that era, including fathers, had actually seen. Some of these screenings were accompanied by a lecturer who would discuss things like sexual hygiene.

  • mds

    prostrate exams.



    Prostate. Prostate. It’s the prostate gland.

    … Sorry. That’s just one of the things I have a stick up my ass about.

    • sparks

      I don’t want to be pedantic either but it’s not a stick, it’s the finger.

      P.S. Use a glove.

      • mds

        [Immediately starts looking for a new physician]

      • Tyto

        “Okay, doc. But that thing better have numbers on it when it comes out…”

        • Linnaeus

          “You using the whole fist there, doc?”

    • Ren Hoek

      To be fair, the patient is somewhat prostrate when getting a prostate exam.

    • Ahuitzotl

      better a prostate exam than a federalist exam

  • Robert Farley

    Your sexual preversions will destroy this blog. Mark my words.

    • Gwen

      Bryan Fischer and Pat Robertson agree. Solar flare? Blame Loomis.

  • DrDick

    I think we have the beginnings of a new Loomis series!

  • Kathleen

    I thought dp’s comment – Erik Loomis, Pervert Historian – had a nice reality show title vibe. Maybe TLC will produce it. In a just world they will have a hole in their line up here soon (we can only hope).

    • tsam

      LOL HOLE

    • JR in WV

      Prevert Historian! Prevert!

      You Don’t want folks thinking Eric is a pervert, do you?

      Oh! Oh, yes, I see.

      Never mind!

  • Katya

    My only question is where I can get a Gilded Age courting chair.

    • I should buy one to use for my office hours.

      • Lee Rudolph

        Didn’t SEK have something like that in his office?

    • Snarki, child of Loki


  • JustRuss

    I have sullied LGM….

    Is that even possible?

  • Ren Hoek

    The Gilded Age courting chair was taken a step further with the Love Toilet on SNL. Why should Gilded Age courting stop at the bathroom door?

  • Ren Hoek

    Somewhere, an LGM reader is renaming his / her bluegrass band “Chattanooga Vibrator, 1904.” And I do mean “blue.”

  • Four Krustys

    Oh for crying out loud. Loomis, I get and enjoy your belligerent whimsy, but this is just silly. This is the Sarah Palin School of Law definition of freedom of speech.

    Why the fuck are you guys running adsense anyway? You’re making what, 50-100 bucks a month from that? Get rid of the stupid ads (which are irrelevant at best to your readers’ interests, completely contrary to their political and moral beliefs at worst (no, I do not want to purchase a Russian bride or see Newsmax’s “one weird cure for diabetes”), frequently crash or redirect their browsers, and make the site slower. Choosing this as your hill to die on is pretty absurd given that I can’t even load this site half the time with my adblocker off.

    Bleg for money. We’ll pay. OK? Do a dildos-in-dead-horses-in-American-history series or something. I’ll be the first to donate.

    Frankly, if your concern is Google deciding what is appropriate or inappropriate for people to see, why have you *chosen* to be part of that system? The same system that has basically destroyed journalism because sites are just trying to get clicks rather than do actual reporting? Don’t be a part of that. Don’t put your labor towards perpetuating a shitty system. There are a lot of other ad networks, and there are a lot of other ways to make money that don’t piss off your readers and sell out your values.

    • We pull in collectively well over $1000 a month. If you are willing to replace that, fine. If you’d like me to just withdraw it from your bank account, send me your information.

      Meanwhile, I’m impressed that you are equating censorship with Palin’s “criticism of me is free speech.” How the two are the same, I don’t know. If someone wants to write a blog post saying I am obscene, that’s fine.

      • Brett

        Wow, over $1000/month? You guys are getting way more traffic than I thought you were. I mean, I like coming here, but it’s usually the same thirty people in the comments threads.

        • tsam

          We leave and come

          • tsam

            back a lot, see?

          • Hogan

            Uh oh. Now you’ve done it.

        • Lee Rudolph

          I mean, I like coming here, but it’s usually the same thirty people in the comments threads.

          I haven’t counted the house, but my gutmicrobiome says it’s quite a bit more than thirty who regularly post, with some specializing in certain kinds of threads (or avoiding posting in certain kinds of threads, for that matter). The figure from back at the height of Usenet (learned from some even more Friendly Commensals!!!), or so I choose to remember it at this time, was something like a 100-to-1 ratio of lurkers to posters.

          I have no idea how traffic per se is related to money grossed. But $1000/month doesn’t seem ridiculously large to me.

          • So, Alexa says that LGM is the 20,105 most popular website in the US and 85,104 in the world (down about 4000 places). According to Liberal Prose (see lil advert!) LGM gets “up to 138,853 imp/wk” and a sidebar ad can cost between $50 and $400 a week.

            (I knew this already because I was considering an ad for my sweetie’s music. But now I’m considering doing some Just For Funz!)

            • Malaclypse

              In the it’s-a-small-world vein, I just found out that a friend of Mrs. Mal is a fan of your sweetie.

            • Scott Lemieux

              Bijan — for the record, I’m pretty sure we can make a deal for you!

        • it’s usually the same thirty people in the comments threads.

          They won’t let us leave and my attempts to smuggle out calls for help inside fortune cookies have come to naught.

          • tsam

            They’re only interested in the lottery numbers.

        • Those 30 people like us. A lot.

      • Four Krustys

        OK, that’s a surprising amount. I still think you could do better. (Or you know, just go whole hog and become a mesothelioma blog)

        I’m referring to the Cracker Barrel/Chik fil A/Mozila/etc. definition of censorship. What I’m equating is you saying that a private company making a business decision is a violation of your freedom of speech. You entered into a voluntary contract with Google AdSense. If you want to violate the agreed-upon terms of that contract (even if they’re silly!) and they don’t want to do business with you as a result of that, that’s not a violation of your freedom of speech.

        I would fight to the death to protect your right to blog about dildos, but you don’t have some inalienable right for Google to serve up shitty “Is Obama the antichrist? Vote NOW” NewsMax ads next to your dildo posts. If Google had flagged your site as an adult site and was filtering it out of search results, I’d have sympathy. But that hasn’t happened.

        “why we can’t have anything having to do with the medicine or the human body available on the internet.”

        Also, this is horseshit. You just can’t have AdSense ads on pages that (bluestocking ad buyers would consider to) have nudity/prurient content on them. Literally all you’re being asked to do is turn off AdSense on THAT ONE PAGE.

        I’m sympathetic to the fact that Google’s ad team has a pretty narrow/clueless view of what constitutes prurient content, but at the same time I work for a large medical website that has hundreds of thousands of explicit (non-pornographic) photos of the human body. We do very well in Google’s search engine. Have a question about (name your body part)? We’re probably in the first 3 results. We even use AdSense on pages that don’t have nudity on them. It’s not a problem!

        When you load a page on LGM, over 3MB of bandwidth is used. 2.7MB of that bandwidth is advertising bullshit, add this, twitter widgets, etc. That sucks, especially if you’re on mobile and paying by the MB.

        • KmCO

          Okay, I think that if your response to this post is anything other than humor, you’re taking it waaaay too seriously. Or perhaps you’ve got some personal beef with Erik, and then I’ve gotta say, don’t you know how much Erik likes stirring the pot?*

          *In any event, I happen to think he’s in the right on this one, and this post was damn funny.

          • Lee Rudolph

            perhaps you’ve got some personal beef with Erik

            Beef, hell! Horseflesh.

      • delazeur

        You are not being censored. No one is preventing you from sharing your content, and no one is preventing anyone else from consuming your content.

        You agreed to sell advertising space to a broker on the condition that it not be next to any explicit material. The broker has warned you that they believe you have violated this condition, and that if you continue to do so they will stop buying advertising space from you.

        Meanwhile, I’m impressed that you seem unable to comprehend that two things can be similar but different.

      • Emma in Sydney

        So that’s about thirty people per day actually clicking through on the crappy Adsense remarketing that runs on the site? Wow. I have used LGM for years to see if my (former) clients’ remarketing campaigns were running, but I am amazed that you would be getting anything like that many clickthroughs. I now have Dr Seuss running in my head: “And I said to him, ‘Lorax, you poor stupid guy, you never can tell what some people will buy'”.

    • KmCO

      I mean, I like coming here, but it’s usually the same thirty people in the comments threads.

      Why is that a problem? I mean, I know that there is a certain uniformity of opinion at this blog, but there are certainly people with idiosyncratic, subtly different views who comment here–I consider myself one of them, even if I’m not exactly a regular commenter. Furthermore, that’s not unusual: go to just about any blog, and chances are you’re going to find the same ~20-50 people who regularly comment. The only blog off the top of my head where there is a pretty strong divide among the commentariat on key issues is Balloon Juice, but even there the quantity of reliable, daily posters isn’t that much greater than that of LGM.

      • Brett

        No, I think it’s a great thing that there’s a coterie of reliable posters. This place has had a great commentariat for a while now.

    • elm

      I missed where Erik said his freedom of speech was violated.

      • Emma in Sydney

        That would be here, elm, using the term of art “censorship”:

        “Meanwhile, I’m impressed that you are equating censorship with Palin’s “criticism of me is free speech.” How the two are the same, I don’t know. “

        • elm

          Look up the concept of corporate censorship. Censoring just means that you’re preventing someone from expressing something. It does not necessarily mean they are violating your freedom of speech when they do so.

          Erik has never claimed that he has the first amendment protected right to post vibrators on LGM. He has claimed that Google forced him to remove the images. There really isn’t a comparison to Palin’s first amendment nonsense, even if you think Erik is being overwought here.

  • Monty

    Oh it’s on! Google vs Rule 34.

    • tsam

      Wow, Google, don’t pick a fight you can’t win.

  • Owlbear1

    Glad to see science has invented a Practice Rectum.

    BUT, …what the fuck is the point of rendering a 3D patient bending over on the monitor?

    • Owlbear1

      ..he comes equipped with software that enables him to interact emotionally with the student…

      Yes, of course, “The Immersion factor”

      • software that enables him to interact emotionally with the student…

        Software that says “ow.” Will wonders never cease?

  • KmCO

    You can see the offending image here. You can understand how it would be considered too scary for grandma.

    To be honest, going off of that image, it’s hard for me discern what’s going on other than penetration of some stripe (and even that’s not super clear). But I guess we can’t have that.

  • urdsama

    Yeah, Google joined the Dark Side years ago.

    The whole “don’t be evil” mantra has died; if it was ever true to begin with…

    • tsam

      I think at first they were on the right track. Nothing like a gazillion dollars to change your view of what evil is.

  • alex284

    Way back in the day I talked to a YouTube PR rep for a man of transsexual history who put up a video showing off his post-op chest that YouTube pulled because of indecency. The insult was worse than here: they weren’t just misapplying their policy (there’s no rule against dudes going shirtless on YouTube), they were misgendering this guy (he showed his breasts! Oh wait, the whole point of the video was that he doesn’t have breasts anymore).

    Anyway, the PR person basically said that YouTube’s censors/community managers/family-friendly fun-gineers/whatever are tired sweatshop workers who can barely comprehend what they see because images fly by so quickly that they all meld into one, but who cares they work for half-a-rupee an hour. Well, not in so many words, and maybe it was a cop-out, but she made it sound like the room for error was large considering their implementation.

    Talking to the rep cleared up the situation, because someone with the time to understand what the video was about could see that there was nothing that violated YouTube’s TOS.

    (Of course women should be allowed to show as much skin as men, but that’s another fight for another day. Just as I don’t really care if Google Adsense appear on porn sites, although other people apparently do.)

    Anyway, this post leaves me with a question for Loomis (or any other LGM writer): Does it make sense for Google to have any content restrictions on sites that use Adsense? For example, what about an actual pornography site? Or an actual penis/breast enlargement site? Not “would you care if Google ads were on porn sites?” but more like “Knowing that Google is operating in a specific cultural context, is it understandable that they provide a certain amount of protection to their clients’ brands by not posting their ads on certain sites?”

  • MedicineMan

    That poster with the “Good Time” girl makes me sad. She looks so buttoned down and square but the poster is warning guys that she is going to burn their junk off if they touch her. My takeaway is that no matter how women act we’re going to shift the goalposts far enough that we can call half of the gender whores.

It is main inner container footer text