If you've ever played that game where you guess whether a guy is a top or a bottom by looking at his general demeanour and taking a stab in the dark? Well, you might actually be on to something.

According to a newly released study in The Archives of Sexual Behavior, people can actually make a fairly accurate assumption about someone's sexual position based on that person's facial features. Apparently, people tend to base their assumptions on stereotypical masculine vs feminine features, and it somehow works out to be slightly more on-the-nose than simply guessing. It doesn't say how much better, which leads me to assume it's not by much, but still, a slight margin of improvement is present. A clip from the study, via The Huffington Post:

"In Study 2, we determined that the relationship between men’s perceived and actual sexual roles was mediated by perceived masculinity. Together, these results suggest that people rely on perceptions of characteristics relevant to stereotypical male–female gender roles and heterosexual relationships to accurately infer sexual roles in same-sex relationships.

Thus, same-sex relationships and sexual behavior may be perceptually framed, understood, and possibly structured in ways similar to stereotypes about opposite-sex relationships, suggesting that people may rely on these inferences to form accurate perceptions." 

So basically, people tend to assume that the more masculine partner is the top and the more feminine partner is the bottom, and this assessment is only slight more accurate than flipping a coin. So . . . I guess stereotypes are actually kind of accurate then? Well, this has been kind of a depressing lesson. Yay? 

If you're like me, you love Stephen Colbert and are a regular viewer of The Colbert Report, even if you do slightly prefer Jon Stewart because you've always had a thing for nebbish, Jewish silver foxes. I guess what I'm trying to say is I love Stephen Colbert almost as much as I love masturbating to The Daily Show.

Apparently, I'm not alone in this incredibly sexual devotion, as straight men everywhere have written in Colbert as the 69th hottest woman in America on Maxim's Hot 100 List. Which is still a thing, oddly enough. Seriously, have you read a copy of Maxim magazine lately? It's the only magazine I know that even smells like roofies. Anyway, Stephen's bio from Maxim:

Democracy isn’t always pretty: Sometimes it’s downright handsome. With a massive write-in vote campaign, the Colbert Nation proved they’re not only loyal but also incredibly horny.

It should be noted that he beat out several woman who are actually sexy (Christina Hendricks,  Sofia Vergara, Kat Dennings) and several who were there because I don't understand straight men (Amanda Knox, Lois Griffin, JWoww). Although in all fairness, this picture of Colbert from the Gawker message boards in drag? Yowza.

Religion and sex have never exactly been close buddies. Most religions tend to look down on any form of sex that isn't for the sake of procreation, because really, what's the point of sex if it can't be used to simultaneously pump out a new batch of followers?

Enter Marc Angenent, a Christian missionary who now runs his own sex-toy website, where he helps teach Christian couples how not to get all bent out of shape over sex. Which sounds all good and fine, except he apparently has a thing against SM and porn, mostly because he doesn't want to freak out his clients, but still . . . seriously? Dildos and vibrators are a-okay, but leather and twink-fucking is where shit goes wrong? That just seems arbitrary. (Via Spiegel)

One married Catholic couple wrote Marc Angenent a despairing email. They hadn't slept together for five years. They thought they could only sleep together when they wanted to conceive a child. That's how they interpreted the Humane Vitae, the papal dictate of 1968. Angenent decided that he wouldn't just help those that came into his living room.

Recently he's given up his post as minister. He has now found his true calling as a sex therapist and on the side he has his erotic business. His decision not to stock whips and fetish articles is not meant to be prescriptive. He just didn't want to shock the Christian community. That's also why he doesn't show naked men and women or pornographic images on his website.

Call me crazy, but ummmmm . . . have you seen the engines on some vibrators? I swear to God, I saw one once that used a goddamn Hemi engine. The damn thing sounded like a chainsaw and looked like a medieval mace. I'm just saying, different people find different things sexy or terrifying. Or both. Sometimes, terrifying can be sexy, too . . .  

So, back when Dominic Ford began shooting all its porn in 3D, my first reaction was, "Well, that's nice, but when are they going to start shooting in 4D?" You know what I'm talking about, right? Like, they film a model who goes back in time and has sex with himself?

Except I then realized that coming into physical contact with your past and future self would result in a tearing of the time-space continuum, which would leave everything that ever was and ever will be in shreds. We can pretty much rule that out. That being said, if Dave Franco's new Funny or Die video is any indication, then it's totally worth it.