In a sweeping lawsuit, the Dept. of Justice on Friday accused TikTok of illegally collecting information on minors without their parents' permission.

SB 1047 would require AI firms to share their safety plans with the attorney general upon request and face penalties if catastrophic events happen.

Bloomberg's Parmy Olson delivers a buzzy, timely biography of AI's promoters, but what are they promoting?

Weeks after California announced a $250 million public-private partnership with Google to fund local news outlets and develop AI, many aspects of the deal remain uncertain.

E-commerce giant Amazon joins Google and other tech companies in investing in nuclear power they plan to use in the race to build new AI-powered products.

'Blade Runner 2049' production company Alcon Entertainment sued Tesla, Elon Musk and Warner Bros. Discovery for copyright infringement. Here's why.

The former California congressman, consummate Donald Trump lackey and Trump Media chief executive is being accused of mismanagement and cronyism.

A survey shows that most Americans have seen a deepfake in recent months, and most worry about AI-generated misinformation influencing elections.

This handbook is designed to empower both new and seasoned flow cytometry users who are curious about the unique capabilities of HTS cytometry.

In this symposium, an expert panel will discuss how sequencing and omics technologies enable unprecedented exploration of health and disease, from genetic disorders to cancer. 

A federal judge weighing Amtrak's bid to seize the historic Washington Union Station wondered whether those plans are consistent with Congress's intent under a 1981 law that requires the station to be managed with "maximum reliance" on the private sector, given the railroad service's desire to have sole domain over the property.

Commuters in Newark, New Jersey, were subject to delays Thursday morning after a bull got loose on the tracks of Newark Penn Station.

Green pump for diesel, blue for gas – but what’s the difference?

Not wearing hearing aids could lead to increased risks of social isolation and Alzheimer's Disease.

The November 2024 Patch Tuesday updates for Windows 11 versions 24H2 and 23H2 make it possible to use the Copilot key on PCs that have one to open other apps.

The post Microsoft Releases November 2024 Patch Tuesday Updates appeared first on Thurrott.com.

Spotify reported double-digit growth across monthly active users, subscribers, profits, and revenues for the quarter ending September 30, 2024.

The post Spotify Revenues Up 19 Percent to €3.99 Billion appeared first on Thurrott.com.

The right has been spreading outrageous lies, claiming that kids are going to school as one gender and coming home as another after "impromptu surgeries." The writer points out how absurd this idea is: surgeries, especially gender-affirming ones, aren’t done in schools, don’t happen on a whim, and certainly aren’t performed on minors without extensive parental involvement. It’s a scare tactic with no basis in reality. by Vivian McCall

Lately, Donald Trump has been spreading a ridiculous lie that kids are going to school one gender and arriving home another.

I wanted to explain how a person doesn’t have to know anything about transgender people, schools, or medicine to know this isn’t true. A little boy isn’t going to come skipping home from school a little girl after an impromptu genital gender-affirmation surgery because gender-affirmation surgeries are not impromptu, are rarely performed on minors, and are never performed on minors without parental consent. They’re not performed in schools at all because schools don’t have operating rooms. Even if there was enough time in a school day to rush a kid to the hospital, this is not a check-up. Nobody waltzes out of the hospital after a major surgery. Think for one second and it makes no fucking sense.

Then I heard Trump say that the Democrats want gender surgeries for “almost everyone in the world” because they’re evil. Suddenly, it felt kind of futile and stupid to write a sarcastic, reasonable explanation of the facts because the floor for what Trump is willing to say about transgender people is a chasm. 

By his telling, the people cheer him on when he mentions “transgender” at his rallies, and he’ll do anything for the applause. This fervor is also why the hundreds of failed anti-trans bills—or polling that shows Americans by and large don’t really give a shit about trans issues and would rather talk about the economy—won’t dissuade Republicans from launching more anti-trans campaigns and introducing hundreds more bills restricting LGBTQ civil rights. During the World Series, viewers were subjected to anti-trans and anti-abortion ads so graphic that networks issued content warnings explaining that legally they have to air anything a qualified political candidate pays for.

We’re not having a rational conversation about trans issues in this country, we’re watching a panic attack about the threat trans people supposedly pose to the concept of gender and the nuclear family.

My better angels want me to tell conservatives about the trans people who want children with their spouses, or still love the ones they had before coming out. But if someone believes Big Gender is an evil enterprise, it’ll take someone they love coming out for them to recognize the groomer talk as the manipulative fiction it is. It will always be easier to hate some blue-haired apparition lurking in the shadows of your mind than your childhood buddy Jim when she tells you to call her Linda.

For obvious reasons, the possibility of a Trump victory is freaking out people in the queer community, even here in Washington, with our protective laws and Democrat-dominated Legislature. Because what Trump says and does are often different things, they’re unsure of the implications for their health care, their families, their marriages, and their futures. 

What We Can and Should Worry About at the Federal Level

In 2023, Penny Nance, CEO of the Christian nonprofit Concerned Women for America, asked Donald Trump to sign a pledge that if he won in 2024, he’d direct all federal agencies to uphold that a person’s “gender identity” doesn’t overrule their “sex.” Pledge or no pledge, nothing Trump did as president or has said during this campaign indicates he wouldn’t.

While in power, Trump appointed a slate of anti-LGBTQ judges. He banned transgender people from serving in the military and weakened their already tenuous access to gender-affirming care. How much farther he could go is another question. The man’s mind is an enigma. No matter who wins, the courts will remain a chaotic x-factor for us all.

By the time Trump took office in 2017, federal courts had recognized existing civil rights laws banning sex-discrimination protected gay and trans people, reasoning that anti-LGBTQ discrimination was, at its core, a reaction to people deviating from the norms of their sex. But the words “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” are not in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or Title IX, a 1972 law prohibiting sex discrimination in education, or Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (the ACA, also known as Obamacare) outlining groups protected from discrimination.

Those rights exist, but they’re not codified. Their existence depends on a broader legal interpretation of what sex discrimination even means. 

Trump’s administration rejected that interpretation. It rolled back Obama-era non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people and plotted to erase the word “sex” from federal civil rights laws. In 2019, the House passed the Equality Act, a bill that would add “sexual orientation” and “ “gender identity” to the Civil Rights Act, on a bi-partisan vote, but the Senate didn’t take up the bill after Trump said he wouldn’t sign it. The bill passed the House again with only three Republican supporters, but did not survive a Senate filibuster. 

Then at the end of Trump’s presidency, the conservative US Supreme Court delivered a stunning 6-3 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County that found Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protected gay and trans people from employment discrimination. As Trump’s handpicked appointee Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion, “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.” Trump, whose White House filed two briefs urging the court to rule the other way, admitted to reporters it was a “very powerful decision, actually.” Not that its “power” changed his thinking. 

Yipee! All solved, right? Gay people have rights forever? Gorsuch is competing in International Mr. Leather next year and drinking with us at the Stonewall Inn? Right? 

Not quite. 

Bostock laid an important legal precedent and textualist argument that’s been cited in hundreds of sex-discrimination cases around the country.  The ruling prompted President Joe Biden to issue an executive order on his first day in office that directed all federal agencies to consider policies banning sex discrimination to apply to gay and trans people. It remains at the core of its interpretations of Title IX, the Violence Against Women Act, the ACA and the federal Fair Housing Act.

But Bostock did not end the fight, and its narrow scope leaves some rights potentially vulnerable should Trump take control. Say he’s elected and makes good on his pledge to Nance. The Supreme Court was clear on workplace protections, but Trump’s lackeys could say their ruling doesn’t apply to housing, healthcare, access to public accommodations, and education.

Mirroring Biden’s executive order to federal agencies, Trump said he’d reverse Title IX protections for trans students on day one of his presidency. He’s also vowed to ban gender-affirming care for minors, which he’s called child mutilation, and cut federal funding for schools that push “gender ideology.” His running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, introduced five anti-trans bills between 2023 and 2024, which included criminalizing healthcare for trans kids. Saving his most deranged takes for the race’s photo finish, Vance appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast and suggested middle- and upper-class white kids become trans to get into good schools, so they can, I guess, piss their pants in the lecture hall if a state revokes their bathroom access. As CNN pointed out, trans kids are actually a lot less likely to get into good schools because all the bullying, harassment, and dark thoughts tend to bring down the ol’ grade point average.

Harris, Harris, Harris, Harris, Harris. In the 2019 primary, she said she supported gender-affirming surgeries for trans migrants in custody. She’s not special for that–federal law requires the government to provide necessary medical care to inmates, and documents show Trump’s Federal Bureau of Prisons acknowledged that law–but people have made a lot of her apparent lack of support this cycle. When asked about transgender rights, Harris’s canned answer is that she’ll “follow the law.” Without a crystal ball or Ouija board handy, I’d hazard to guess she’d likely follow in Biden’s footsteps and his “follow the law” line is a dodge —perhaps part of her plan to nab all the Republican-leaning voters who can’t stand Trump but may not get trans issues. After all, trans issues have been a fruitful wedge issue precisely because people don’t understand them – and people fear what they don’t understand.

That said, laws are not virtues, and trans people are pissed about her lack of commitment. They’re scared because they’ve been pilloried in this election, and following the law in certain states means they don’t have civil rights. Plenty have fled those laws. Her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has one of the best records on gay and trans rights of any Democratic governor, from his time as a football coach sponsoring a Gay-Straight Alliance in a small town to signing an executive order to make Minnesota a “trans refugee state.” I don’t trust politicians as a rule, but Walz has been an ally much longer than it’s been cool or even acceptable.

Now for the part that made me go uh-oh out loud.

No matter who wins, these anti-discrimination protections are up against federal courts stacked with conservative appointees, and conservative think tanks have the money, the time, and the zealous devotion to launch sophisticated attacks to invalidate LGBTQ rights and restrict the legal definition of sex in perpetuity.

Jaelynn Scott, Executive Director of the Lavender Rights Project, a Seattle-based LGBTQ legal advocacy organization, is convinced the broad interpretation of Title VII will face continual legal challenges until lawmakers amend the Civil Rights Act to include “gender identity” or pass the Equality Act.

Federal judges have already blocked Biden’s Bostock-backed interpretations of Title XI and the ACA’s non-discrimination protections. The same Supreme Court justices who ruled in favor of Bostock also blocked the administration's Title IX rules. The court’s recent decision on Chevron Deference compounds the problem. It not only weakened the power of federal agencies to enact new rules that comply with often vague laws from Congress, but it also made challenging federal regulations much easier and shows we can’t count on the Justices to adhere to binding legal precedent, which sucks because this all may come down to if or when the Supreme Court sets limits on Bostock. 

We know it will soon decide if laws restricting gender-affirming care violate the US Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. On December 4, the Court will hear US v. Skrmetti, a challenge to Tennessee’s ban on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors.

The case is important because it could determine what level of protection trans people have under the Equal Protection Clause. Elana Redfield, Federal Policy Director at the Williams Institute, a LGBTQ public-policy research center at the University of California, Los Angeles, says the issue at the heart of this case is whether it is unlawful for the state to ban these treatments in the way that it did. 

Recent cases show the state might be able to legally prove no sex discrimination took place. The first is Dobbs, the case that struck down abortion. In the Dobbs decision, the court cited an old case called Geduldig v. Aiello, which found a state could legally deny insurance coverage for medical complications during pregnancy, even though it would have almost entirely burdened cis women, to say states could prohibit abortion. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals applied Geduldig to Adams, a case that upheld a state’s right to enact trans bathroom bans. In Skrmetti, The Sixth Court of Appeals again applied the same exact legal reasoning to gender-affirming care. It ruled the Bostock decision applied only to workplace discrimination and lawmakers had the right to regulate medical procedures as long as they did so without discriminatory intent. 

“I know, it's pretty in the weeds, but it is also important,” Redfield said in an email. “In part because it provides a pathway for courts to avoid finding sex discrimination, and in part because they are citing back to cases decided before “intermediate scrutiny” for sex discrimination was even established.”

It’s not all bad news. This April, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed lower court decisions that North Carolina’s and West Virginia's bans on gender-affirming care were unconstitutional. 

Trump’s focus on trans people has obscured his position on gay rights, which enjoy broader support from the American electorate than trans rights.

But would a party more aligned with the religious and extreme right than ever abandon the positions they’ve consolidated power over for decades, just like that? The supposedly “softer” Republican platform that claims the party will leave abortion to the states has not convinced millions of women across the country. Omitting a direct reference to same-sex marriage in that same platform, while still invoking its “sanctity,” shouldn’t convince gays, either. 

A second Trump administration would be filled with pre-vetted loyalists. The aides, staff, bureaucracy, and institutions that inhibited his most destructive impulses during his first turn have been foxed out of the henhouse. If Trump follows the plan outlined in Project 2025, he’ll reconstitute the administrative state as a faithful engine of Trumpism. If decisions from the Washington Post’s and Los Angeles Times’s billionaire owners are any indication, institutions may be folding in advance. Trump is promising to throw his political enemies in jail, for God’s sake. When have gay people ever emerged from a regime like that unscathed?

Um, What About Washington?

Even if everything goes to hell and Trump or the courts change how the government interprets sex-based anti-discrimination protections, Washington State will probably remain a good place to be gay and trans, legally speaking. Though there’s always uncertainty in the brackish waters between federal and state law, we're pretty Trump-proofed.

The Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) broadly guards against anti-gay and anti-trans discrimination in housing, places of public accommodation, employment, credit transactions, healthcare, and other areas. 

Meaning you should be able to sign a new lease, take out a massive home loan, celebrate with fine dining and heavy drinking, stumbling and falling on your way out the door, breaking your arm, calling an ambulance, arriving at the hospital, and having a qualified medical professional examine you without anyone throwing your gay or trans ass into the street.

The WLAD also guarantees access to gender-affirming care and requires insurers to cover it, a protection the Gender Affirming Treatment Act (GATA) strengthened in 2022.

The state also allows those born here to change the gender marker on their birth certificate from M to F, F to M, or from either to X. In 2023, Governor Jay Inslee signed laws that sealed name changes for transgender people and protected trans runaways in the shelter system. He also signed a shield law that protects people who seek gender-affirming care and abortions in Washington from the authorities in states that have banned or criminalized their healthcare.

Even if the Supreme Court struck down Obergefell v. Hodges, gay marriage would remain legal in Washington, save the Supreme Court losing its mind and allowing for a federal prohibition on same-sex unions, another can of worms that would be litigated to hell along the lines of states rights. Gay couples would still be able to adopt, too. Lesbian couples could count on the law to protect access and insurance coverage for fertility treatments.

Adrien Leavitt, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Washington, says in many regards our state constitution is also more protective than the US constitution, that we have a strong State Supreme Court, and that our lawmakers have shown an ongoing commitment to upholding and strengthening protections for LGBTQ people.

Our Democratic lawmakers did let the right take one victory on LGBTQ issues this year, however, when it passed Let’s Go Washington’s legally ambiguous, but dog-whistle-y Parents Bill of Rights ballot initiative I-2081.

Concerned the law may allow parents to access their child’s counseling records, the ACLU of Washington, QLaw and Legal Voice filed suit. A King County Superior Court Judge later blocked that provision. But passing the law might have been a political calculation in Olympia. HadDemocrats let it go to voters, and it passed, the Legislature couldn’t amend it next session.

We still don’t have all the answers. Rebekah Gardea, QLaw’s director of community advocacy and outreach, raised I-2081 as an example in a pattern of attacks on LGBTQ rights across the country able to infiltrate even a progressive state like Washington. Even if advocacy groups can be fairly confident laws banning gender-affirming care would die in committee here in Washington, the right can always introduce an initiative if there’s the money and motivation to do so. In the event of a second Trump presidency, Gardea says her organization is concerned about how our shield law would hold against a federal investigation, or what potential data privacy gaps the state may have. It’s a question the Legislature may have to answer next session.

“There’s a lot of unknowns that we’re still looking into,” she said. “We’re trying to figure out how we strengthen those protections as soon as possible so there’s really no room for interpretation.”

Should the storm come, the best thing Washington could do is adopt the position that it will live up to its progressive values by vigorously defending them against outside actors, including a federal government that imposed restrictions on LGBTQ rights. Bob Ferguson, the Attorney General and Democratic frontrunner for the governor’s race, said in a statement he’d be ready on “day one” to combat a Trump presidency.

That’s all well and good for us, but sanctuary state thinking is a trap. Your civil rights are tenuous if they can disappear at the state line.  

These progressive state laws do not regulate hate and intimidation, and if the federal government goes screwball, there’s no telling how that would change the social dynamics in this country. They’ve already changed so much in a short period of time.

Eight years ago in 2016, lawmakers nationwide had only introduced 55 anti-trans bills nationwide. That same year, North Carolina's passage of a single anti-trans bathroom bill prompted the NCAA to ban college sports championships in the state, PayPal to cancel plans for a new office and Beatle Ringo Starr to cancel a massive concert. The Associated Press determined the state stood to lose $3.76 billion dollars over the bathroom policy, which is why lawmakers repealed it the next year. In the last two years, we’ve seen between 1,000 and 1,200 bills. Most fail, but plenty are passing. Where are those boycotts now? The only transgender-related social contagion in this country is ignorance. When it comes to hate, state borders are astoundingly porous.

I’m very confident Washington won’t pass a gender-affirming care ban in the next five years, or even the next 10 years. But 15? A lot can change. Fifteen years ago, Donald Trump was hosting Season 8 of The Celebrity Apprentice. 

The world changes and complacency is one way to speed up that change. There’s a snide attitude in blue states about red states, like the only reason regressive laws get passed is because all the people there are stupid and backward enough to let it happen. I hear variations of this contemptuous position in gay bars and on gay couches at parties all the time, and it totally ignores decades of disenfranchisement and manipulation that have tilted the balance of power in red states. 

So the next time you think something to the effect of, “at least I’m safe,” think about the woman going septic in the hospital parking lot, or the trans kid weighing suicide in their bedroom. If you’re not for them, you’re not for anything at all.

Tuesday’s catastrophic results at the federal level mask a different, more durable, and deeply consequential result here in Seattle: Voters chose a public safety candidate from the left. by Kamau Chege

Tuesday’s catastrophic results at the federal level mask a different, more durable, and deeply consequential result here in Seattle: Voters chose a public safety candidate from the left.

For close observers, the result was no surprise: Alexis Mercedes Rinck, running on a strong message of smart, sensible, and progressive public safety and stability, won her primary handily, led in the polls in the lead up to the general election, and easily defeated an incumbent councilmember citywide with more votes than any city council candidate has ever won in a Seattle election.

The critical takeaway is how she won. Rinck, unlike other candidates from Seattle’s left wing in recent years, conceded to the obvious but difficult-to-navigate reality that Seattle voters view public safety as the single most important issue in local elections and, importantly, that those views actually reflect a material reality that bears serious public attention and public work. Missing from the campaign were efforts to browbeat voters for being concerned about public drug use, visible homelessness, and a pervasive sense of disorder in our streets. 

Unlike her opponent, however, Rinck’s policy proposals to tackle voters’ biggest concerns are evidence-based. She supports deep investments in affordable housing — and is willing to raise revenue to pay for it. She’ll work to expand mental health treatment opportunities for those who need it. She’ll fully fund critical municipal services that connect people to resources before they fall into crisis. And she’ll work to build more housing everywhere.

Woo’s campaign, meanwhile, felt rudderless and contradictory to itself. She was at once painting herself as an outsider seeking change, but also as an incumbent who got progressive results. But in facing a charismatic, competent opponent who conceded that Woo’s main issue was central but ran on doing something about it that might actually work, Woo’s campaign collapsed. 

At the beginning of the year, a campaign based on public safety seemed like fertile ground for Woo and her colleagues on the city council who won their elections hammering the same themes against a left that failed to counter pandemic-era attacks about defunding the police.

Rinck’s progressive campaign neutralized those attacks by recognizing a fundamental liberal principle: that when public spaces become private domains — whether through encampments or open air drug markets — they deny public amenities to the many while inadequately serving the few who are unhoused or in crisis. The solution most people want, as Tuesday’s results suggest, lies not in costly incarceration or aimless sweeps but in moving people from crisis to care.

The public’s fixation on safety and stability in this election should not surprise us. Fears about safety flourish in populist moments, in cities divided between haves and have-nots, and in places grappling with widening inequality. As zoning laws continue to strangle our ability to build, crisis care programs are starved for funding, and democratic institutions strain under populist pressure, voters gravitate to a basic need for physical and psychological security.

Rinck’s campaign offers us a model and a playbook for organizing with hope and meeting people where they are — even if that is initially a place of fear and contradiction. Her campaign, and those we hope will follow it in winning back the City Council for progressives, offers abundance in the face of scarcity and hope in the face of despair.

We’re facing bleak times as a country. Perhaps it’s precisely because things are so bad right now that we can't give in to despair, whose pernicious power is its ability to narrow our attention to narratives that only encourage more despair. Its impact results in our inaction. 

As implausible as it seems, this moment demands hope, and specifically, hope as action. We must remind ourselves and each other of our own agency, and our ability to imagine a better future, a better system. Despair calls on us to retreat. Hope asks: what if we win? Then demands we go out and make it happen. On Tuesday, Rinck did just that.

Kamau Chege is a democracy reform advocate. Rian Watt is an economic justice advocate.

Cory Doctorow: "I will never again devote my energies to building up an audience on a platform whose management can sever my relationship to that audience at will." It's a good practice, and while I completely support it, I am part of several communities that could remove me without recourse. I do it because I value the people in the community, and feel that life is too short to wait for everyone to get it right.

Doctorow was writing about Bluesky, and once again, on Bluesky a discussion starts on what it would take for Bluesky to attract developers, and each time I am told that they have done enough, and I go away thinking that their pitch is a scam, and they're building value in a user base that they will sell. They certainly could do it, and for all we know the founders may have already sold some of their stock in the latest investment round which valued the company at $x billion. (I did a search to find the evaluation but it appears to have not been announced.)

I gave them a roadmap, again, of how to demonstrate that they're open, and finally concluded that the only way to really do it is to "provide a download that you can install on any popular operating system to get an instant blue sky network, running on its own without any help from anyone else. Then you can claim to be really open and until then there will be a lot of confusion." (And I was generous at that. More accurately, people with experience in tech will be certain this is yet another deal where the founders get rich, where the users are the product and have read too much into their promise of being open.)

I'm still on Bluesky but I expect them to be another Twitter, which btw had an open API too, and it's pretty good, but they never offered the option of people running their own twitters. That would have been good protection against a Musk buying them out and turning us into pawns in his plan for world domination. Do we really want to help someone else build one of those?

In early 2017 I observed that Twitter had just been used to route around journalism and elect a president. This value wasn't on their balance sheet as an asset. I felt its stock was vastly underpriced. Exactly as it turned out when Musk bought it. Everyone still thinks he paid too much, at this moment it could possibly gain him control of part of the US government's $6 trillion per year budget early next year, and if they start selling the assets of the government he could be in the best position to buy them at pennies on the dollar, or take a percentage of each saleAt this point it doesn’t matter what the NYT says. Either way they jumped the shark for the last time in this election.. He could probably start borrowing against it the day after the election is called for Trump.

In the title I ask if a Musk could buy Bluesky, it's possible they have a way to prevent that in the design of their corporation, that's why it's a question. But if the price were right maybe the founders would sell out even if they didn't have to.

Opaque black bodystocking with lace up bareback. Open crotch for convenience. Onesize (5' ~ 5'10", 100 ~ 175lbs). Black color only. Price: USD15.01

Opaque long sleeves teddy from Music Legs. In soft stretchy nylon. 3 buttons snap on crotch for convenience. Goes well with skirt and as inner wear with jacket for a sexy look. Great to be worn at home under a robe. Hard-paper box packaging, Dim: 25x18x1cm. Onesize (5' ~ 5'10", 100 ~ 175lbs). Black color only. Price: USD18.03

Stretch opaque suspender bodystocking from Music Legs. Low cut with elastic spaghetti straps. Onesize (5' ~ 5'10", 100 ~ 175lbs). Also available in Plus size. Hard-paper box packaging (Dim: 16 x 22 x 1cm). Black color only. Price: USD12.00

Opaque lowcut footcover suitable to go with highheels. A footcover to offer some relieve to your stressful feet and nobody will know you are wearing one. See Sizechart. Price: USD4.45

Bandeau top sectioned suit with rings down center front. Sensual and sexy in soft and comfortable fabric. Designed in USA. Black color only. Sizes S-M and M-LXL. See Sizechart. Price: USD19.54

Opaque teddy from Music Legs. Sensational design with cut-out back. Very hot. Onesize (5' ~ 5'10", 100 ~ 175lbs). Black color only. Price: USD8.98

A new collection of pantyhose by Annabel. Fashion leg wear, opaque tights in 70 denier.

A new collection of pantyhose by Propeds. Contour enhancing velvet touch, sheer to waist with mild compression.

Here's a weblog or blog on masquerading emails. This free RSS feed could help you to identify masquerading emails that are worms, virus, scams or spams. Having an increased awareness and understanding may help to prevent your computers from being infected or being misled by some scams.

A new collection of mini dress by MusicLegs®.

Opaque stretch mini dress with front bow. Elastic sexy spaghetti strap. Very hot. Plus size.

A new collection of opaque stockings by MusicLegs®. Opaque thigh highs with wide patterned lace band.

A new collection of Silky Support Pantyhose by GaLeries®. 15 denier sheer silky pantyhose for that glamorous look. Firm hold of your legs for full day wear. Sheer support. Comfortable elastic band. Sandal toe. Plus size.

Added Beige color to the collection of bodysuit by MusicLegs®.

Opaque bodystocking with reversible V-back and long sleeves. Open crotch for convenience.

A new collection of bodystockings by MusicLegs®.

Opaque footless bodystocking with long sleeves. Ribbed nylon which is semi-opaque when stretched. Scooped neck. Crotchless. Suitable for workout.

A new collection of mini dress by MusicLegs®.

Opaque mini dress. Black and white wild stripes to highlight the body contour. Halter neck to show off your sexy shoulders.

A new collection of pantyhose by MusicLegs®.

Semi-opaque tights with hologram dragon. Dragon pattern is glittering stick-on laser hologram print.

Red mini dress by MusicLegs®.

Opaque stretch mini dress with front bow. Elastic sexy spaghetti strap. Very hot.

A new collection of opaque minis by MusicLegs®.

Sexy opaque minis with one shoulder off by MusicLegs®. Trimmed with glittering multi-facet rhinestones.

A new collection of bodystockings by MusicLegs®.

Lycra opaque sleeveless bodystocking with side crochet potholes and sexy spaghetti straps. Enhanced with precious Lycra for durability and elasticity.

A new collection of mini dress by MusicLegs®.

Opaque stretch mini dress with sensual mesh top and spaghetti straps. Very hot.

A new collection of Opaque thigh high stockings by MusicLegs®.

Opaque thigh high stockings with wide comfort band and sensual adjustable lace up top.

A new collection of body suit by MusicLegs®.

Opaque halter top. Comes with matching short skirt. Very hot.

New colors added to the collection of trouser socks by MusicLegs®.

A new collection of Mini Dress by MusicLegs®.

Opaque stretch mini dress in horizontal stripes. Halter neck with front rose. Very sexy.

A new collection of footcovers from Korea.

Brightly colored opaque lowcut footcover with Lycra®. Soft and comfortable, suitable to go with highheels. A footcover to offer some relieve to your stressful feet and nobody will know you are wearing one.

A new collection of teddy by MusicLegs®.

Opaque long sleeves teddy in soft stretchy nylon. 3 buttons snap on crotch for convenience.

Goes well with skirt and as inner wear with jacket for a sexy look. Great to be worn under a robe.

A new collection of bodystocking by MusicLegs®.

Stretch opaque suspender bodystocking. Low cut with elastic spaghetti straps.

Available in both freesize and plus size.

A new collection of knee highs by Sarah Borghi®.

Fashion patterned knee highs. Tube design to fit most feet length.

A new collection of corchet thigh hi stockings by Elegant Moments®.

Sensual corchet thigh hi with Lycra.

Queensize: 1x - 3x

A new collection of bodystockings by Elegant Moments®.

Opaque bodystocking with spaghetti straps. Open crotch for convenience.

Onesize:

A new collection of bodystockings by Elegant Moments®.

Opaque bodystocking with spaghetti straps. Open crotch for convenience.

Queensize: 1x to 3x.

Also available in onesize.