Text by Brian Hunt, Owner Ethimo Foto, Copyright 2025
.
A Classic Session With Lumen Foxx
.
My subject for this particular shoot is Lumen Foxx. She is a classically trained dancer who I chose for her ability to hold poses requiring strength and balance. The ceiling height and exposed beam at Tony Ward Studio allowed me to hang a heavy mooring rope for Lumen to create poses with. During lighting changes Lumen would study the portraiture on the studio walls, which also serves as a gallery space. Sometimes the photographs provoked her to ask questions about the work on display, which honestly enhanced our working rapport more than I expected.
Photo: Ethimo Foto, Copyright 2025
TWS is like visiting a gallery or a museum, the environment promotes a discussion of ideas, and the sharing of lifes stories. Quickly we found ourselves in a steady flow of poses as if we were trying to outdo the subjects who were depicted on the walls. Near the end of our time TW peeked in to check on us, and answered questions about several of the key pieces in the studio on exhibit. After hearing the backstories on a few of the pieces, Lumen and I rallied for one last set of poses that turned out to be some of the strongest material of the day. I can’t help but think that the vibes emanating from Tony Ward Studio and the and the visit from Tony himself attributed to a grand finale.
In a sweeping move that has sent ripples through the federal workforce and beyond, President Donald Trump has issued executive orders dismantling Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs within the federal government. These actions, which include placing DEI staff on paid leave and deactivating related web pages, mark a significant departure from previous efforts to promote inclusivity in public institutions.
The administration’s stance is that DEI initiatives constitute “illegal and immoral discrimination programs” and divert from merit-based hiring practices. By revoking Executive Order 11246, originally signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 to prohibit employment discrimination by federal contractors, the current administration aims to eliminate what it perceives as preferential treatment based on race, sex, or religion.
Critics argue that dismantling DEI programs threatens decades of progress in addressing systemic inequalities. Civil rights advocates express concern that these measures will reduce workplace diversity and hinder efforts to combat discrimination. The rollback of DEI initiatives is seen by some as a step backward in promoting equal employment opportunities for historically marginalized groups.
DEI
The implications of these executive orders extend beyond the federal workforce, potentially influencing the broader American economy and job opportunities for people of color and other non-white ethnic groups. Federal contractors, who were previously mandated to implement affirmative action programs under Executive Order 11246, may now feel less compelled to prioritize diversity in their hiring practices. This shift could lead to decreased representation of minority groups in various industries, as companies may no longer be incentivized to actively promote inclusive hiring.
Moreover, the administration’s directive to encourage the private sector to end DEI initiatives could have a chilling effect on corporate diversity efforts nationwide. Businesses that once invested in DEI programs to foster inclusive workplaces might scale back or eliminate these initiatives, fearing potential scrutiny or repercussions. Such a trend could exacerbate existing disparities in employment and advancement opportunities for underrepresented groups.
The trickle-down effect of these policies may also impact educational institutions and nonprofit organizations. With the federal government signaling a departure from DEI commitments, universities and nonprofits that rely on federal funding might reconsider their diversity programs to align with the new directives. This could result in reduced support systems for students and communities of color, further entrenching systemic inequities.
In summary, the administration’s recent executive orders to eliminate DEI programs represent a significant policy shift with far-reaching consequences. While proponents argue that these measures restore merit-based practices, critics contend that they undermine efforts to promote diversity and inclusion, potentially reversing progress made in creating equitable opportunities for all Americans.
For many couples, keeping the spark alive is an important priority, but maintaining that excitement can be challenging. Recently, more couples are exploring unconventional ways to enhance intimacy and connection, and for some, that means delving into the world of bondage. Bondage, an aspect of BDSM (bondage, discipline, sadism, and masochism), can be a powerful tool for partners looking to add novelty and depth to their relationships. But does bondage play actually improve a couple’s sex life, and what are the pros and cons of getting involved in this lifestyle?
Pros of Bondage in Relationships
Increased Communication
Bondage requires extensive communication, trust, and consent, all crucial factors for a healthy relationship. Partners must discuss boundaries, desires, and safe words, which encourages open dialogue. This transparency can foster emotional closeness, as couples get more comfortable talking about their needs and limits.
Building Trust
Engaging in bondage means one partner often relinquishes control while the other takes it. This dynamic requires a level of trust that, when respected, can bring partners closer. Successfully navigating these experiences can boost trust, allowing couples to feel more secure and connected.
Heightened Excitement and Passion
Bondage introduces new sensations and power dynamics that heighten anticipation and thrill. Trying something outside of their usual routines can rejuvenate a couple’s intimacy, creating excitement and rekindling passion that may have dwindled over time.
Cons of Bondage in Relationships
Miscommunication Risks
Despite the emphasis on clear communication, misunderstandings can happen, especially for couples new to the lifestyle. If boundaries aren’t fully understood or safe words aren’t adhered to, one partner could feel uncomfortable or even unsafe, potentially damaging trust.
Psychological Boundaries
Not everyone is comfortable with the idea of being restrained or in a submissive role. Pressure from one partner to engage in bondage without genuine interest from the other can lead to resentment, anxiety, or discomfort.
Physical Risks
Bondage, if not practiced safely, can cause physical harm, particularly if a couple lacks experience or knowledge. Proper equipment, safety training, and clear communication about boundaries are vital to prevent injury.
Does Bondage Really Improve Relationships?
The answer depends on the couple. For some, the thrill, trust, and enhanced communication bring a new level of intimacy and excitement. But for others, it may create stress, discomfort, or even conflict if both partners aren’t on the same page. The key is mutual consent, trust, and open dialogue. For couples who are both curious and committed to trying bondage safely, it can be a unique and fulfilling way to deepen intimacy.
Sexual Freedoms. Photo: Tony Ward, Copyright 2024.
The Future of Sexual Freedoms Under the Roberts Supreme Court
.
Post-Dobbs and Roe v. Wade
.
A Shift in Legal Precedent
The decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which had guaranteed a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion for nearly five decades, marks a significant shift in the Court’s approach to sexual freedoms. By returning the power to regulate abortion to the states, the Court has opened the door to a patchwork of laws that vary widely across the country. Some states have swiftly moved to ban or severely restrict abortion, while others have enacted protections, creating a deeply divided nation. This fragmentation not only affects reproductive rights but also signals a broader trend toward states having greater autonomy over sexual freedoms.
Potential Impacts Beyond Abortion Rights
The Dobbs decision has also raised concerns about the potential rollback of other rights related to sexual freedom. Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion, suggested that the Court should reconsider precedents related to contraception and same-sex marriage. Although Chief Justice John Roberts has not explicitly supported such a move, the mere suggestion has caused anxiety among those who fear the erosion of established rights. This signals that other aspects of sexual freedom, previously thought to be secure, could be vulnerable to future challenges.
The Role of the Roberts Court
Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court has demonstrated a cautious but deliberate approach to shifting the legal landscape on social issues. While Roberts himself is often seen as a moderate, his leadership has facilitated a more conservative tilt, especially with the recent additions to the Court. This shift suggests that the Court may continue to uphold or even expand state powers in regulating sexual freedoms, potentially revisiting and reinterpreting precedents that impact contraception, LGBTQ+ rights, and privacy issues.
A Future of Uncertainty
As the Court continues to shape the legal framework of sexual freedoms in the post-Dobbs era, Americans are left facing an uncertain future. The direction the Roberts Court takes in upcoming cases will likely determine whether sexual freedoms are further restricted or if a balance can be struck between state regulation and individual rights. What remains clear is that the era of certainty provided by Roe v. Wade has ended, and a new chapter of legal battles and state-by-state variability has begun.
Simone With TV on at Hotel Village, Hamburg Germany. Photo: Tony Ward, Copyright 2024
Text by Bob Shell, Copyright 2024
.
A Vast Wasteland
.
I grew up in television. My father, Jim Shell, was the news anchor for WSLS TV Channel 10, the NBC affiliate in Roanoke, Virginia, and I used to hang around the TV station as an obnoxious kid.. So it was natural for me to go to work in television after college. In 1971 I worked for WRFT TV Channel 27, in Roanoke, the ABC affiliate. My boss there was Adrian Cronauer, the man Robin Williams portrayed in the film ‘Good Morning Vietnam.’ It was a very small TV station, so everyone did everything. I did newscasts, weather reports, hosted late night horror movies, produced, directed, ran the soundboard, was staff artist and photographer, etc. It was a great learning experience.
Back in those days the man who headed the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, was a fellow with the amazing name of Newton Minnow. I always thought he must have been teased in school for being called Newt Minnow, named for two little aquatic critters.
Anyway, after assuming chairmanship of the FCC, Mr. Minnow watched a lot of TV and famously called TV ‘a vast wasteland.’ In those pre-cable days, the FCC had near absolute control over TV. For example, there was an FCC rule against portraying superstition as factual. This resulted in the cancellation of ‘The Sixth Sense,’ a program I liked, because it portrayed psychic phenomena as true. It always bugged me that this rule wasn’t enforced against TV preachers. The worst I ever saw was Billy James Hargass who performed miracle healings on his program. Don Imus did a wonderful parody with his Billy Sol Hargass character.
When I watch TV today on cable, I ask myself ‘Where is Newt Minnow now that we need him?” TV today has sunk to depths he could never have imagined. But the FCC, by law, has jurisdiction only over broadcast TV and radio, it lacks any authority to regulate cable TV or cable radio. The results are obvious.
One thing the FCC did was regulate the amount of time commercials could take up in programs. When I worked in TV, we never ran more than two commercials in a single commercial break, only two breaks per half hour, and both commercials were thirty seconds in length. Today there are so many commercials in a break that I lose count! This, in my opinion, dilutes the value of them all. And it disrupts the continuity of the program. This is why old TV programs must be reedited to make room for all of the additional commercials, often disrupting the story.
When TV was broadcast-only we watched TV for free. The programming was paid for by the advertisers. Why today do we pay for cable TV and still suffer through commercials? It’s like double-taxation!
I’m an admitted news junkie. I watch NewsNation a lot to stay informed. But I’ve become burned out on repetition of the same commercials ad nauseam.
For example, if I see Jonathan Lawson hyping Colonial Penn life insurance again I may start pulling out my hair. I’ve noted that he says your rates will never increase, but he does not say that your coverage will never decrease!
Or the jewelry company called Pandora. Anyone who knows a bit of Greek mythology knows that Pandora was the first human woman. In Greek, Pandora means ‘All Gifts.’ After Zeus created her, he gave her a beautiful box, but strictly ordered her not to open it. Pandora could not restrain her curiosity and opened the box, releasing all evils upon mankind. Name your company after the person who unleashed all evil? What were they thinking?
I could go on about the stupidity of commercials, but I’ll spare my readers that vitriol. My point is that there are too many commercials, and too many of them are just plain stupid. Advertisers must believe the famous quote variously attributed to P. T. Barnum and F. W. Woolworth; ‘No one ever went bankrupt by underestimating the good taste of the American public.’
