Romance, Historical, Contemporary, Paranormal, Young Adult, Book reviews, industry news, and commentary from a reader's point of view

Monday News: X-rays of corsets; scientists study the justification for oral...

corsets x-rays

“Female orgasm may be designed to increase relationship satisfaction (Pair-Bond Hypothesis), to encourage subsequent copulations (Promoting Future Copulations Hypothesis), to retain preferentially the sperm of men with higher genetic quality (Sire Choice Hypothesis), to promote fertilization (for a critical review, see Levin, 2011), or female orgasm may be a non-functional byproduct of male orgasm (reviewed in Puts, Dawood, and Welling, 2012). “ Discover Magazine

“On the basis of this trial record I would find that the publishers conspired with each other in December of ’09 and January of 2010 to raise eBook prices.”

Snyder said in the back and forth on this point, “I think that the critical question is, in terms of Apple’s liability, whether Apple was aware of such a horizontal conspiracy.”

Judge Cote said, “I agree with that, absolutely.”

Jane Litte is the founder of Dear Author, a lawyer, and a lover of pencil skirts. She self publishes NA and contemporaries (and publishes with Berkley and Montlake) and spends her downtime reading romances and writing about them. Her TBR pile is much larger than the one shown in the picture and not as pretty. You can reach Jane by email at jane @ dearauthor dot com


  1. CG
    Jun 24, 2013 @ 06:17:57

    I can’t access the Publisher’s Lunch article (members only), does it say when Judge Cote will reach a decision? Because I’m hopeful Apple will get a smackdown.

    “Why on earth would anyone perform oral sex? Particularly on a woman?!? Really, Discover? Really? I’ve no desire to read the rest of the article after that opening.

  2. Jane
    Jun 24, 2013 @ 06:58:26

    @CG – No, there is no mention of when Judge Cote will reach a decision. I suspect it will be shortly. She’s been very prompt with her decisions in the past. A court official said it might be two months and I think 60 days is a pretty reasonable time frame in which to write a decision such as this.

  3. Patricia Eimer
    Jun 24, 2013 @ 07:06:05

    Really good article. Can’t wait to hear what the judge decides.

    And the corsets? Talk about suffering for beauty.

  4. Jen
    Jun 24, 2013 @ 09:17:27

    “Digg picked up on this article and killed the site…” What does that mean?

    @CG: Wow. Just wow. ?!?!

  5. JacquiC
    Jun 24, 2013 @ 09:59:09

    UGH. I agree that the “particularly on a woman” intro kills any interest in reading this article further. WHY? I would have thought that oral sex on either gender is equally perplexing from a scientific perspective. In both cases, it doesn’t seem to further the biological purpose of reproduction.

  6. Tom
    Jun 24, 2013 @ 15:35:27

    The same judge is now handling the Penguin/Author Solutions class action lawsuit. Pretrial stuff started today.

  7. Fiona McGier
    Jun 24, 2013 @ 15:59:18

    “female orgasm may be a non-functional byproduct of male orgasm”–really? What male-centric hubris! Females have the only organ on the human body designed just for one purpose: sexual pleasure. And it gets dismissed that easily as a “non-functional byproduct” of the obviously much more important few-seconds-long male orgasm? I’m so irritated I wish I subscribed to Discover so I could send them a note discontinuing my subscription and demanding my money back!
    I have 3 sons and one daughter, and we’ve frequently joked about which sex is superior…when they were younger, my sons and husband always trumped the discussion with the ease of peeing in the woods, since we’re all avid campers…daughter and I had to concede on that one. But when they got older, I told them I’d never give up multiple orgasms for any of their puny advantages! Sons and husband are still trying to figure out how to trump that! I say they’ll never be able to! Viva la difference, and to hell with Discover!

  8. Mitzi
    Jun 24, 2013 @ 16:03:29

  9. Julaine
    Jun 24, 2013 @ 21:08:38

    I understand all of the arguments that Apple and their lawyers made and I give note to the distinction between the horizontal conspirators vs the vertical players theory. But the fact remains that if Apple hadn’t entered into that particular set of agreements with the publishers with the express purpose to undermine Amazon’s market share to the benefit of the publishers and Apple and to the detriment of the consumer this whole sorry affair would have never occurred.

    The publishers needed Apple and the power it represented to force Amazon to back down. The publishers saw that Amazon had created a revolutionary product that was completely transforming their industry. Instead of embracing that change, they felt threatened and attempted to do everything they could to undermine or impede digital publishing. In their panic they made a number of incredibly shortsighted decisions, including enlisted Apple (who had its own agenda) to combat an entity that should have been the publisher’s biggest partner/ally, instead turning Amazon into the enemy.

    Apple may be able to wiggle out from under this mess due to a technicality but my desire to spend money on their products or support their platforms has been greatly lessened by a careful study of their business practices.

%d bloggers like this: