No, not dead, not quitting

Hi, there.

I know it's been early a month. The holiday season has been busy, sure, but it's no excuse.

And it's not as if there hasn't been stuff to talk about, either. Mary Cheney's pregnancy, New Jersey legalizing gay unions, Mitt Romney's dancing around being pro-gay before he was anti-gay, and the news that soy makes you gay.

It's just that I've found myself turning this blog into a "sex news" blog, only posting stuff I get from news sources. That's not what I'd intended, but I honestly can't tell you what I'd intended when I started this project, either. It's been so long. It started out as a "Hey, this is something fun," but I didn't plan for anything beyond that.

So I've been taking something of a sabbatical, here. I'd like to get a clear handle on how to proceed and where I want this to go. It's been tons of fun so far, so much fun that I don't want to proceed further without a clear idea of what to do next, and how to make it as good a blog as possible.

Stay tuned. I'll have a handle on things after the new year starts.

J.T.

Now the Serious Stuff...

I'm not going to link to these knuckleheads. Why encourage them? They're called "Respect Life Tulsa" and they're posting billboards all over Oklahoma that say, "Birth Control Is Harmful." Go to their website, and you're introduced to a long intricate list of lies.

"Birth Control Is Harmful..." (Some of them are repetitive--My responses are in plain text.)

"It creates a sex on demand attitude." And what's wrong with that? Oh, yeah. Answer below.

"It does not protect against sexually transmitted diseases." Actually, Respect Life Tulsa admits that condoms reduce the risk of STDs. However, the website adds that birth control doesn't prevent STDs, it only reduces the risk. It doesn't add that the effectiveness of condoms against most STDs is greater than 95%.

In addition, Respect Life Tulsa barely mentions condoms at all. Most of their hot air is spent talking about the pill and other hormonal forms of birth control. You'd think if RLT was so anti-birth control, they'd spend a little more time talking about the least expensive, most effective birth control available.

"It contributes to sexual addiction." Not one shred of scientific evidence that this so-called addiction even exists, let alone that it's made worse by birth control.

"It causes abortions." Here's the logic. The pill and other hormonal controls prevent a fertilized egg from settling in the uterus and thus this constitutes an abortion. Never mind that no responsible medical authority agrees with them. Also, never mind that most forms of birth control (condoms, sponges, diaphragms, spermicides) actually prevent fertilization in the first place.

"It degrades women and makes them simply a sexual object." Hmm. From what I remember of the history of feminism, birth control gave women the opportunity to obtain educations, enter the workforce, and make greater contributions to society without necessarily being baby machines. If expanding womens' opportunities is degrading them, how are they being exalted by having as many babies as possible?"

"It allows people to bond without a commitment." Without a commitment to having a baby, that is. Or is having a baby the only valid form of commitment two people can make?

"It gives a false sense of safety in having promiscuous sex." Joke response: No, it gives a legitimate sense of safety in having promiscuous sex. Serious response: According to Planned Parenthood, (Providing the full link below) 53% of married couples in the U.S. used birth control on a regular basis in 2002. RLT seems to be operating under the belief that married couples don't need birth control.

"It negates the wedding vows." When I married my lovely wife, we promised to "love, honor, and obey," just like every other married couple we ever knew. I don't remember promising to knock up my wife at every chance, nor did she agree to breed like a bunny at the drop of a hat. And what about couples who just end up childless? Should their marriages be annulled? Call me nut, call me crazy dreamer, (Go ahead. "J.T., you nut! You crazy dreamer, you!") I'd thought marriage vows were about love, and not necessarily about making babies. But I could be wrong.

"It does not honor the purpose of sex." You got me there, RLT. I'd always thought the purpose of sex was to bond with another human being, give someone else pleasure and make her feel good and beautiful and sexy, and have a little fun, myself. Obviously, I was all wrong. The only purpose of sex is to make babies.

"It decreases the natural consequence of a child from extra marital affairs, which has for a long time been a deterrent." Let me get this straight. Reducing illegitimate births is a bad thing? This world needs more bastards?

"It treats the body like an object, not a person-something just to be used for sexual pleasure." Whereas RLT is interested in using the body only to breed, to reproduce, to propagate, to be fruitful and multiply. The woman's body, that is.

"It creates a sex on demand attitude, which can lead to sexual assaults and rape." More problems with having sex when you want to, not just when your partner's ovulating. And I fail to see how sex when you want to negates consent. After all, I can only assume she wants to have sex on demand just as much as he does.

"It has caused social chaos." Not a clue. Not a fucking clue what they're talking about. When did this chaos start? At the turn of the last century, when the early feminists started advocating birth control? 1962 when the Pill came out? '66 when the Supreme Court ruled in Griswold v. CT? What chaos was this that came out of birth control? The Super Bowl? The Beatles? Watergate? Britney Spears? Oh, never mind.

"It treats children like accidents or mistakes and creates an anti-child mentality in society." Wait a minute. I thought accidental children (like bastards) are a good thing. Seems to me that if we give couples more options when it comes to having kids, the kids will be more wanted than if they were simply "oops" babies.

"It treats the woman's body and her fertility like some kind of disease. It treats the body like it is just a machine-something to be used just for sexual pleasure." Whereas they ought to be considered a finely honed baby machine.

"It allows people to bond without a commitment."
"It degrades women and makes them simply a sexual object."
"It does not respect the Creator's purpose for our bodies and our sexuality."
"It does not honor the purpose of sex."
"It negates the wedding vows."
"It treats the body like some kind of machine-something just to be used for sexual pleasure."

We're repeating ourselves, RLT.

The website elaborates on some of these, without providing any sort of study or proof to back up their claims. However, if you want a little verification, Planned Parenthood is kind enough to provide.

A while back, I posted a story about how the Feds are trying to push consenting adults into abstaining from sex until they're thirty. Dubya's new head of family planning is anti-family planning. There's a movement among Evangelicals to produce as many children as possible to be "arrows" in God's army. The campaign between the Holy Terrors and their whores in the government is coordinated and obvious.

I know, I know. A whole week away. Sorry.

Something to make up for all the time away.

Serious stuff a little later.

The consequences of Bush's ignorance-only sex ed in Africa.

People die.

Found this at AmericaBlog. Heartbreaking.

Aids pandemic gains renewed strength·

Report highlights reversal of prevention in Uganda · Improvement in Europe
and US 'not sustained'

Sarah Boseley, health editorWednesday November 22, 2006The Guardian

The spread of the HIV/Aids pandemic continues unabated, with the number of
people infected rising once more in some countries which had been thought to be
beating the disease, according to the UN.
There are now 39.5 million living
with HIV infection, according to the annual UNAIDS report, released ahead of
World Aids Day on December 1, and 4.3 million of those were infected in 2006.
That is 400,000 more than were infected in 2004.

Most alarming is the
increased prevalence in Uganda, long held up as a showcase to the world of what
could be achieved in Africa with campaigning, education and widespread condom
use. The report shows a rise from a low of 5.6% infection among men and 6.9%
among women in 2000 to 6.5% in men and 8.8% in women in 2004.

The reasons for the increase are not clear, but there has been a shift in
the message from Uganda's leadership. Between the early 1990s and early 2000s,
HIV prevalence fell sharply in major cities among pregnant women - the group
most commonly monitored because they have contact with health services - as
President Yoweri Museveni worked to raise awareness of the dangers of HIV and
put the authority of his office behind condom use.

But in recent years the message on condoms has been diluted in
favour of greater emphasis on sexual abstinence until marriage - in line with
the thinking of the Bush administration, which is spending millions of dollars
on HIV prevention and treatment. Critics say many women are not in a position to
abstain from sex and that many are infected by their husbands.

The report says further research is needed to validate the apparent trend
"but the current findings do hint at the possible erosion of the gains Uganda
made against Aids in the 1990s". There is evidence of erratic condom use and
more men having sex with multiple partners.

In Mali also the epidemic could be growing after remaining stable for some
years, with HIV prevalence among pregnant women rising from 3.3% in 2002 to 4.1%
in 2005. While Kenya's epidemic is in decline, the report says there are
suggestions that this could be because of the high death rate and "the
saturation of infection among people most at risk".

In North America and western Europe also, the gains made by programmes
aimed at preventing infection have not been maintained. The number of infections
in the US, with a far greater proportion in African-Americans and Hispanics, is
stable but not declining. In the UK, there is a steady rise.

In western Europe, says the report, "the largest increases have been
reported in the UK, where HIV remains one of the principal communicable disease
threats". New diagnoses are increasing in areas other than London, which has the
most cases. Most of those with HIV were infected in sub-Saharan Africa. Fear of
stigma and discrimination is discouraging Africans in the UK from being tested,
says the UN.

Peter Piot, UNAIDS's executive director, was concerned by the trends. "This
is worrying - as we know increased HIV prevention programmes in these countries
have shown progress in the past, Uganda being a prime example ... Countries are
not moving at the same speed as their epidemics."

The emphases are mine. The Bushies are bound and determined to make sex as risky as possible. Even at the expense of peoples' lives.

More On Gov. Romney's Special Brand Of Homophobia

It seems the battle lines are being drawn for the '08 race.

On the one hand, we have Sen. McCain, formerly a courageous Vietnam veteran and P.O.W., nowadays a spineless waffler and Bush kissass in the Senate. A few weeks ago, he said he supported letting gay couples participate in ceremonies, just as long as the ceremonies weren't legal. Like when little girls drape towels on their heads and play at being brides.

Then, last Sunday, Sen. McCain bravely stuck himself out on a limb once again, taking the spineless position that while he opposes gay marriage, he's cool with letting the states decide whether to legalize it or not, even though he doesn't think it should be legal.

Get all that?

But wait. There's more.

In this corner, the outgoing Governor of the only state in the Union to legalize gay marriage, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. Gov. Romney wants to overturn the will of the MA Supreme Court and the state legislature that the issue is decided, and demand, DEMAND, I say, that the Court put the issue on the next statewide ballot, because he just can't abide the democratic process working on an issue he doesn't like.

And then, Gov. Romney, unhappy with Senator McCain's flip-flopping like a trout in the bottom of a boat, had this to say about the good Senator's position.

“Look, if somebody says they’re in favor of gay marriage, I respect that
view. If someone says — like I do — that I oppose same–sex marriage, I respect
that view. But those who try and pretend to have it both ways, I find it to be
disingenuous.”

Romney doesn't just want to get rid of gay marriage in Massachusetts, by the way. He supports amending both the MA Constitution and the U.S. Constitution, as well.

So, on the one hand, we have a spineless, waffling limpdick on the subject, and on the other hand, we have an outright bigoted homophobe. Both these men are jockeying for position to obtain the G.O.P.'s nomination for President in 2008.

Can't hardly wait.

Here we go again....setting the stage for the 08 gay bash

The stench from the midterms has barely wafted away, and already the G.O.P. is gearing up to drag the issue of gay marriage back into the mud.

Milt Romney is the Republican governor of Massachusetts, the only state to legalize gay marriage in the U.S. He's also got Presidential aspirations, not to mention the fact that he's a Mormon.

So, what does a G.O.P. Presidential wanna-be do to court favor with the Holy Terrors he hopes will put him in office? Why, he targets gay marraige, of course!

Romney seeks Mass. court help on gay marriage ban
By Kevin McNichols
Sun Nov 19, 6:04 PM ET

BOSTON (Reuters) - Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said on Sunday he would
ask the state's highest court to intervene to let voters decide on a proposal to
ban gay marriage in the only U.S. state where it is legal.

"This week we will file an action before the courts calling upon the
judiciary to protect the constitutional rights of our citizens," Romney, a
potential Republican presidential contender in 2008, told a rally organized by
opponents of gay marriage.

Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, a
conservative Christian organization that opposes gay marriage, said his group
would also file lawsuits seeking to put the measure to the ballot.

Lawmakers in the state's Democrat-controlled legislature earlier this
month dealt a huge blow to opponents of gay marriage when they adjourned without
voting on a constitutional amendment that would have helped pave the way for the
ballot question in 2008.

Romney, a vocal critic of gay marriage, plans to ask the state's Supreme
Judicial Court, which legalized gay marriage, to order Massachusetts' secretary
of the commonwealth to put the amendment on the ballot, his spokesman, Eric
Fehrnstrom, said on Sunday.

Roughly 8,000 same sex couples have wed in the state since they got the
right in 2004, but opponents of gay marriage say the issue should be up to
voters to decide.

Speaking from the steps of the city's historic gold-domed statehouse,
Romney, who is retiring and will be replaced by a Democratic governor in
January, addressed nearly 5,000 people demonstrating for and against same sex
marriage, according to state police estimates.

"It is an embarrassment that this governor is using the steps of the state
house to promote bigotry and to promote his own presidential campaign because
that is all this is. It is flat-out, unadulterated opportunism," said Boston
resident Robyn Ochs.

In order for the proposal to ban gay marriage to get on the ballot in 2008,
25 percent of Massachusetts' 200-member Legislature would have to approve the
measure in the current legislative session and one more time before the general
election in 2008.

The Legislature returns on January 2, the last day of the session, but it
is not expected to consider the amendment.

Keep in mind it was the Massachusetts court system that legalized gay marriage in the first place. I'm not sure whether Romney expects the Mass High Court to override its own authority and that of the legislature, or whether he expects this attempt to fail so he can at least say to his Holy Terror pimps, "See! I did my best! It's these liberal judges who shot us down!"

Bush's Anti-Family Planning Head Of Family Planning

Does this make sense? In Orwell's 1984, sure. And Bizarro World.

And, oh yeah. The Bush White House, where the Clean Skies Initiative creates more pollution, No Child Left Behind means abandoning kids, and torture isn't torture anymore.

Bush Choice for Family-Planning Post Criticized
By Christopher
LeeWashington Post Staff WriterFriday, November 17, 2006; Page A01

The Bush administration has appointed a new chief of family-planning
programs at the Department of Health and Human Services who worked at a Christian pregnancy-counseling organization that regards the
distribution of contraceptives as "demeaning to women." Eric Keroack, medical director for A Woman's Concern, a nonprofit group based in Dorchester, Mass., will become deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the next two weeks, department spokeswoman Christina Pearson said yesterday.

The Keroack appointment angered many family-planning advocates, who noted that A Woman's Concern supports sexual abstinence until marriage, opposes contraception and does not distribute information promoting birth control at its six centers in eastern Massachusetts. "A Woman's Concern is persuaded that the crass commercialization and distribution of birth control is demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality and adverse to human health and happiness," the group's Web site says.

*****
Marilyn Keefe, interim president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which represents 4,000 family-planning clinics, said Keroack's work "seems to really be geared toward furthering anti-choice, anti-contraception policies." She added that despite the congressional election results, the appointment "goes to show you the importance of controlling the White House and how important
federal agencies are in the delivery of health services." The federal
family-planning program, created in 1970, supports a network of 4,600
family-planning clinics that provide information and counseling to 5 million people each year. Services include patient education and counseling, breast and pelvic exams, pregnancy diagnosis and counseling, and screenings for cervical cancer, sexually transmitted diseases and HIV.
Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, called Keroack's appointment "striking proof that the Bush administration remains dramatically out of step with the nation's priorities."

Big surprise. More of Bushco's systematic War On Whoopie. Discourage contraception. Promote "Abstinence Only" sex ed, more accurately described as "Ignorance Only" education. Get women to squeeze out as many babies as possible to use as cannon fodder..correction..as arrows in God's Army.

What amazes me is the fact that the Bushies just don't get it. They don't understand that they're losing the War On Whoopie. They don't understand they're in the minority. Most Americans don't think the way they do. If a normal executive branch found itself on the short end of the stick when it comes to what people say they want and need, the executive would at least take the opinions of the majority into consideration. But then, we're not dealing with an normal executive branch.

Earlier this week, Bush's gruppenfuhrer Karl Rove muscled his way into the Republcan National Committee's meeting and announced that Florida Senator Mel Martinez was Bush's pick to be the Committee's new head. Martinez is a stout Bush minion who's often shot off his mouth in favor of the Bushco/Holy Terror anti-gay agenda.

The only problem (for the G.O.P., that is), is that Martinez isn't as anti-gay as he asserts. At least when it comes to people working for him. What does all this mean? Just that Martinez is like most Republican politicians; when it comes to sucking the dick of his base, he's as anti-gay as the rest of them, but that he doesn't really believe it. So when he talks, he's talking out of both sides of his ass.

Babies? Or Arrows?

Found this in The Nation.

It's worth reading the whole article, but some of the main points:

'Arrows for the War'
Kathryn Joyce

Janet Wolfson is a 44-year-old mother of eight in Canton, Georgia. Tracie
Moore, a 39-year-old midwife who lives in southern Kentucky, is mother to
fourteen. Wendy Dufkin in Coxsackie has her thirteen. And while Jamie Stoltzfus,
a 27-year-old Illinois mom, has only four children so far, she plans on bearing
enough to populate "two teams." All four mothers are devoted to a way of life
New York Times columnist David Brooks has praised as a new spiritual movement
taking hold among exurban and Sunbelt families. Brooks called these parents
"natalists" and described their progeny as a new wave of "Red-Diaper Babies"--as
in "red state."

But Wolfson, Moore and thousands of mothers like them call themselves and
their belief system "Quiverfull." They borrow their name from Psalm 127: "Like
arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. Blessed is the
man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they
contend with their enemies in the gate." Quiverfull mothers think of their
children as no mere movement but as an army they're building for God.
Quiverfull parents try to have upwards of six children. They home-school
their families, attend fundamentalist churches and follow biblical guidelines of
male headship--"Father knows best"--and female submissiveness. They refuse any
attempt to regulate pregnancy.

*****
Though there are no exact figures for the size of the movement, the number
of families that identify as Quiverfull is likely in the thousands to low tens
of thousands. Its word-of-mouth growth can be traced back to conservative
Protestant critiques of contraception--adherents consider all birth control,
even natural family planning (the rhythm method), to be the province of
prostitutes--and the growing belief among evangelicals that the decision of
mainstream Protestant churches in the 1950s to approve contraception for married
couples led directly to the sexual revolution and then Roe v. Wade.
*****
But if the Quiverfull mission is rooted in faith, the unseen, its mandate
to be fruitful and multiply has tangible results as well. Namely, in Rick and
Jan Hess's words, to provide "arrows for the war."
After arguing Scripture,
the Hesses point to a number of more worldly effects that a Christian embrace of
Quiverfull could bring. "When at the height of the Reagan Revolution," they
write, "the conservative faction in Washington was enforced [sic] with squads of
new conservative congressmen, legislators often found themselves handcuffed by
lack of like-minded staff. There simply weren't enough conservatives trained to
serve in Washington in the lower and middle capacities." But if just 8 million
American Christian couples began supplying more "arrows for the war" by having
six children or more, they propose, the Christian-right ranks could rise to 550
million within a century ("assuming Christ does not return before then"). They
like to ponder the spiritual victory that such numbers could bring: both houses
of Congress and the majority of state governor's mansions filled by Christians;
universities that embrace creationism; sinful cities reclaimed for the faithful;
and the swift blows dealt to companies that offend Christian sensibilities.

"With the nation's low birth rate, the high divorce rate, an
un-marrying and anti-child viewpoint, and a debauched nation perhaps unable to
slow down the spread of AIDS, we can begin to see what happens politically. A
half-billion person boycott of a company which violated God's standards could be
very effective.... Through God's blessing we would be part of a replay of Exodus
1:7, 'But the sons of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly, and
multiplied, and became exceedingly mighty, so that the land was filled with
them.'" "Brethren," they write, "it's time for a comeback!

So, what does all this have to do with the price of Trojans? This "Quiverfull" movement among Evangelicals isn't too far removed from the bile put forth by some of the more mainstream Holy Terrors, including members of the G.O.P.

For example, the FORMER Junior Senator from Pennsylvania, Rick "Man On Dog" Santorum is more famously known for comparing homosexuality to bestiality. However, lesser known is a statement the Senator once made on the Brian Lehrer Show:

“(T)he point of marriage from a societal point of view is not to affirm the love of two people, and to make people feel good about who they are in their relationship, but in fact the point of marriage is for having children …If we change that, we devalue the institution and we change it, and re-orient it more toward parents, and away from children.”

The highest courts in New York and Washington have said the purpose of marriage is to have children, and many other G.O.P. politicians have been gracious enough to shoot off their mouths on the subject as well. More details here.

I've got nothing against kids, myself. I'm happily married, and I've got four progeny of whom I'm very proud. But the fact is my Lovely Wife and I chose to have kids according to our plan, and not those of God, or the Republican Party. To reduce women to machines popping out babies and marriages to infant sweatshops seems so...Medieval to me. The next thing you know, they'll be trying to shut down any form of sex that doesn't expressly produce children. You know, gay sex, sex toys, pornography, contraception, and oh, I dunno, just about everything else fun about sex. A veritable War On Whoopie, if you will.

Or do I repeat myself?

More on Arizona's bucking the trend.

As previously noted, of the eight states with anti-gay marriage initiatives on their respective ballots, Arizona (Arizona?) was the only state to NOT pass such an initiative. Why?

Glenn Greenwald at Salon has an idea. (You might have to sit through a free daypass to access the article. Well worth the time, IMHO).

Anyway, Glenn's theory is that the Arizona referendum failed not because of a sudden willingness of Arizonians to accept gay marriage per se, but it failed because of an aversion on their part to permit the government to meddle in their personal affairs.

From the article:

the successful campaign to defeat the Arizona referendum was based on a
generalized libertarian aversion to governmental intrusion into the private
sphere, rather than support for gay marriage per se. And therein lies the most
significant lesson to be drawn from the weakening support for these referendums
in 2006 -- namely, the rejection by Western states of the activist social
conservative agenda that has fueled the Republican Party's dominance of the
South.

In other words, Western state voters are more inclined to have a MYOB-type philosophy than are the social conservatives who dominate the Republican party these days. I can buy that. As noted below, the Colorado anti-gay initiatives passed, but not by the wide margins seen in other states, and Referendum I (giving gay couples legal rights) actually led in the polls for a long while.

Then There's The Catholic Church...

boasting some of the sharpest minds of the Fourteenth Century.

Bishops Back Guidelines Urging Gay Celibacy
By NEELA
BANERJEE
Published: November 14, 2006

WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 —The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops voted
overwhelmingly today to support initiatives based on traditional teachings that
call for gay and lesbian Catholics to remain celibate and for married Catholics to reject artificial contraception.

At a semi-annual meeting in Baltimore, the United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops voted to adopt guidelines aimed at
clergy members and others who provide pastoral care to gay men and lesbians.

The guidelines welcome gay people, but they also affirm church
teachings that “homosexual inclinations” are inherently disordered. While having such inclinations is not sinful, gay sexual activity is, according to the core teachings. The guidelines, called “Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination,” passed by a vote of 194 to 37. They also speak out against same-sex marriage and adoptions by gay men and lesbians.

DignityUSA, an advocacy group for gay Catholics, said the new
guidelines would further alienate gay people from the church. Bishop Arthur J.
Serratelli of Paterson, N.J., chairman of the doctrine committee, which
developed the guidelines, acknowledged Monday that the committee did not consult
with gay men and lesbians on the document.

“It’s really disappointing,” Sam Sinnett, president of DignityUSA, said
of the new guidelines. “At some point, the bishops have to realize that they
speak in willful ignorance about what homosexuality is and about sexuality in
general. They have to decide if they are moral teachers or simply employees of
the Vatican.”

The bishops also adopted “Married Love and the Gift of Life,” which is
meant to explain church teachings about contraception for engaged and young
married couples.

The document, approved by a vote of 220 to 11, asserts that artificial
contraception introduces a “false note” into a marriage and has led to a decline in respect for life in society. Catholics use birth control to the same extent as other Americans; only 4 percent, according to the document, use natural family planning, the type of birth control backed by the church.

Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kan., said Monday that gay
Catholics who are not celibate and married Catholics who use artificial
contraception should not receive Holy Communion.
Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice, which supports the use of artificial contraception, said the bishops’ policies on sexuality did not offer reliable
guidance for most Catholics.

“Heterosexual Catholics, married and unmarried, understand that the
responsible exercise of their sexuality includes the use of contraceptive
methods that the church forbids,” Ms. Kissling said in a statement. “Almost no
one is looking to the bishops for guidance on contraception, sexuality and law
making, and if the bishops continue making pronouncements such as those issued
this week in Baltimore, they will find themselves increasingly isolated.”

The emphases are mine. The prohibitions against birth control also crack me up. Considering this institution gave us the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Immaculate Conception, and the torture of Galileo Galilei, why am I not surprised?

Oh, yeah. Then there's the coverup of the priests-as-sexual-predators scandals. Can't forget that.

Mexico City and South Africa OK gay unions

So lemme get this straight...

Mexico City, (90% Catholic, btw) and South Africa are more forward-thinking than the good old U.S.A.

Geez, this place is a mess.

And to make up for being so long away...

A little porn...

to go with my political

post-mortem.

Doesn't this lovely lady

resemble Maggie

Gyllenhall?

Who's hot n' sexy-and-

a-half, btw.

Finally back at the computer!!

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Election Day!!!!

To quote my dear old granddaddy....

Time to show those sons-of-bitches who's boss.

Vote.

E-Day Minus One...From Last Month's ERWA

ALL WORKED UP ABOUT NOVEMBER 7TH
By J.T. Benjamin
Copr. 2006

When I first set out to write about sex, I’d planned to only write about…well…sex. I’d have been perfectly happy to limit the discussions to such things as contrasting the acting abilities of Jenna Jameson and Nina Hartley. The benefits of doing it with voluptuous women as opposed to stick insects. How Anais Nin was just a better writer than Henry Miller. Intermingling sexual discussions with political topics just seemed so….dirty.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m a political junkie of the first order. I’m perfectly willing to wax rhapsodic about political topics as is any man. In my youth, I’d just believed that political issues should be reserved for one end of the writing spectrum, and sexually oriented topics were of a more private nature, and that it was best not to attempt to intermingle the two; sex and politics just didn’t naturally mix.

Oh, was I ever really so young and naïve?

It's been a particularly pungent election year, hasn't it? You can smell it in the air. Some blend of old sweat-socks, the floor of a bus station men’s room, and a decomposing rodent underneath the patio deck, I should say. Yes, indeed. It is an especially pungent lection year.

And that means that it’s time to talk about sex, sex, sex!

Now, when it comes to the intermingling of sex and politics, I’d be perfectly willing to fall back on my standard mantra on the subject: Mind Your Own Business. Don’t go busting into my bedroom passing judgment and casting stones, and I’ll likewise be perfectly happy to let you indulge in your own twisted perversions in peace.

Unfortunately, ‘twas not meant to be. Sex and politics are intermingled like peanut butter and jelly, like beer and baseball, like Lennon and McCartney. And I’m not just talking about sordid scandals meant to defame candidates for public office. This isn’t about stains on blue dresses and secret trysts with one’s mistress and rumors about being secretly gay. Sex is a legitimate political issue, one that must be considered when members of the electorate step into their voting booths tomorrow.

And I have to point out that it wasn’t Yours Truly who decided to inject sex into the current political debate. Like I said before, I’m a believer in the M.Y.O.B. plank in the political platform. The decision to make sex a political issue rests exclusively with the Powers That Be.

It’s a well-known belief that one of the reasons President Bush won re-election in 2004 was that he was able to put the sex-and-politics issue to good use. Apparently, Bush’s uber-advisor Karl Rove was the architect behind putting anti-gay initiatives on the ballots in several strategic states that year. Homophobes, frantic to prevent the government from treating homosexuals like real human beings, headed to the polls in a frenzy and, while they were busy casting their votes in favor of bigotry and discrimination, they also took the opportunity to vote Dubya to a second term in office.

This year, it appears to be more of the same. However, since Dubya can’t run for another term (Thank GOD!!) the sex-and-politics angle is tied into the mid-term elections, where the U.S. will elect county and state officers, the entire U.S. House of Representatives, and a third of the U.S. Senate.

As an example, let’s discuss my own home state of Colorado. Following Karl Rove’s playbook, the Colorado Family Action Issue Committee put an anti-gay measure on the fall ballot to get homophobes to the polls, where they would presumably also vote to put homophobic candidates into office as well. The measure, called Amendment 43, would specify that matrimony can only be a “one-man/one-woman” arrangement, banning gay marriage and embedding discrimination into the Colorado Constitution. Seven other U.S. states have similar initiatives on the ballot, as well.

However, if you use a tactic too often, your opponents start using it as well. Coloradoans for Fairness And Equality got their own measure on the November ballot, called Referendum I. This initiative would grant gay couples the right to qualify for “domestic partnership” status, giving them legal, insurance, and medical decision-making rights, similar to those available to heterosexual marriage.

Get all that? Colorado voters have the chance to pass a pro-gay initiative and an anti-gay initiative on the same ballot. And, according to the latest poll, both measures are winning. In other words, if the election were held today, Colorado voters would happily say to gay couples, “Benefits? Sure! Marriage? No way!”

And don’t think it’s just about gay marriage, either. Politicians have the power to affect sexual liberty in a wide variety of ways. State governments have been legislating against making contraceptives available to poor people in Missouri. They’ve been trying to ban the sale of sex toys in South Carolina. They’ve been prosecuting sex toy salespeople in Texas and Alabama. They’ve been trying to push abstinence-only (a.k.a. “ignorance-only”) sex education in states across the Union. The Federal government, through Congress, the Bush Administration, and a conservative-packed judiciary, is prosecuting the adult film industry with more vigor than they’re pursuing suspected terrorists.

And yet, despite the current government’s efforts to stifle freedom of speech, of the press, and of sexual identity, the puppetmasters in charge are actually upset that the Powers That Be aren’t doing enough.

Dr. James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family and one of the grand exalted mucky-muck pooh-bah Dragons of the right-wing fascist-religious movement I’ve dubbed the Holy Terrors, said last September 18th that he was “flat-out ticked” at the Republican leadership’s failure to adequately advance his anti-gay, anti-freedom, anti-whoopie agenda. However, Dr. Dobson also said that if his minions didn’t continue supporting the G.O.P., the alternatives were “downright frightening.” So, if Dr. Dobson gets his way, can we count on the government acting with more restraint and tolerance, or will they “kick it up a notch?”

Back in college, one of my professors told me it’s an easy trick to predict the future. Simply observe a trend, and then decide whether or not the trend will continue. The way things are going, will we Americans see more of the same from our leadership, or will things be different? More obscenity prosecutions or fewer? More attempts to stifle sexual expression and identity, or fewer? More attempts to legislate homophobia and prosecute sexually “deviant” practices, or fewer? More attempts to batter down our bedroom doors, or fewer?

I won’t push for particular candidates or for particular issues. But I can only assume that people who read this column and visit this website are creative, rational, open-minded, intelligent people, especially when it comes to sex. So please, please, please, fellow ERWA readers, use all that creative, rational, open-minded intelligence when you step into the voting booth.

Vote with your hearts, vote with your minds, vote with your sense of common decency, vote with your knowledge of what is right and wrong.

Hell, vote with your loins.

But vote.

Then some serious stuff...

First, the good news...

Sex is good for you.

Like I said, I'm all for finding rationalizations for the things I like to do, but I'm not supposed to do. Red wine, coffee, porn, and sex itself. Woo-hoo!

Is Sex Necessary?
Alan Farnham

Fans of abstinence had better be sitting down. "Saving yourself" before the big game, the big business deal, the big hoedown or the big bakeoff may indeed confer some moral benefit. But corporeally it does absolutely zip. There's no evidence it sharpens your competitive edge. The best that modern science can say for sexual abstinence is that it's harmless when practiced in moderation. Having regular and enthusiastic sex, by contrast, confers a host of measurable physiological advantages, be you male or female. (This assumes that you are engaging in sex without contracting a sexually transmitted disease.)

In one of the most credible studies correlating overall health with sexual frequency, Queens University in Belfast tracked the mortality of about 1,000 middle-aged men over the course of a decade. The study was designed to compare persons of comparable circumstances, age and health. Its findings, published in 1997 in the British Medical Journal, were that men who reported the highest frequency of orgasm enjoyed a death rate half that of the laggards. Other studies (some rigorous, some less so) purport to show that having sex even a few times a week has an associative or causal relationship with the following:

- Improved sense of smell: After sex, production of the hormone prolactin surges. This in turn causes stem cells in the brain to develop new neurons in the brain's olfactory bulb, its smell center.

- Reduced risk of heart disease: In a 2001 follow-on to the Queens University study mentioned above, researchers focused on cardiovascular health. Their finding? That by having sex three or more times a week, men reduced their risk of heart attack or stroke by half. In reporting these results, the co-author of the study, Shah Ebrahim, Ph.D., displayed the well-loved British gift for understatement: "The relationship found between frequency of sexual intercourse and mortality is of considerable public interest."

- Weight loss, overall fitness: Sex, if nothing else, is exercise. A vigorous bout burns some 200 calories--about the same as running 15 minutes on a treadmill or playing a spirited game of squash. The pulse rate, in a person aroused, rises from about 70 beats per minute to 150, the same as that of an athlete putting forth maximum effort. British researchers have determined that the equivalent of six Big Macs can be worked off by having sex three times a week for a year. Muscular contractions during intercourse work the pelvis, thighs, buttocks, arms, neck and thorax. Sex also boosts production of testosterone, which leads to stronger bones and muscles. Men's Health magazine has gone so far as to call the bed the single greatest piece of exercise equipment ever invented.

- Reduced depression: Such was the implication of a 2002 study of 293 women. American psychologist Gordon Gallup reported that sexually active participants whose male partners did not use condoms were less subject to depression than those whose partners did. One theory of causality: Prostoglandin, a hormone found only in semen, may be absorbed in the female genital tract, thus modulating female hormones.

- Pain-relief: Immediately before orgasm, levels of the hormone oxytocin surge to five times their normal level. This in turn releases endorphins, which alleviate the pain of everything from headache to arthritis to even migraine. In women, sex also prompts production of estrogen, which can reduce the pain of PMS.

- Less-frequent colds and flu: Wilkes University in Pennsylvania says individuals who have sex once or twice a week show 30% higher levels of an antibody called immunoglobulin A, which is known to boost the immune system.

- Better bladder control: Heard of Kegel exercises? You do them, whether you know it or not, every time you stem your flow of urine. The same set of muscles is worked during sex.

- Better teeth: Seminal plasma contains zinc, calcium and other minerals shown to retard tooth decay. Since this is a family Web site, we will omit discussion of the mineral delivery system. Suffice it to say that it could be a far richer, more complex and more satisfying experience than squeezing a tube of Crest--even Tartar Control Crest. Researchers have noted, parenthetically, that sexual etiquette usually demands the brushing of one's teeth before and/or after intimacy, which, by itself, would help promote better oral hygiene.

- A happier prostate? Some urologists believe they see a relationship between infrequency of ejaculation and cancer of the prostate. The causal argument goes like this: To produce seminal fluid, the prostate and the seminal vesicles take such substances from the blood as zinc, citric acid and potassium, then concentrate them up to 600 times. Any carcinogens present in the blood likewise would be concentrated. Rather than have concentrated carcinogens hanging around causing trouble, it's better to evict them. Regular old sex could do the job. But if the flushing of the prostate were your only objective, masturbation might be a better way to go, especially for the non-monogamous male. Having sex with multiple partners can, all by itself, raise a man's risk of cancer by up to 40%. That's because he runs an increased risk of contracting sexual infections. So, if you want the all the purported benefits of flushing with none of the attendant risk, go digital. A study recently published by the British Journal of Urology International asserts that men in their 20s can reduce by a third their chance of getting prostate cancer by ejaculating more than five times a week.

So, sex is good for your physical health, right?

But, but, but...wait a minute! The Holy Terrors and the Federal Goverment are doing everything possible to keep us from having sex! At least, any sex that doesn't involve making babies. Keep it to a bare minimum, they say. Don't have gay sex. Don't use erotica or porn to get you in the mood. Don't use birth control. Don't use sex toys. Don't have fun. Don't teach kids about having sex. Don't let them get vaccinated against HPV. Don't encourage them in any way. Teach them only to abstain. Hell, teach grown-ups to only abstain. And when they do have sex, make it as risky as possible. Think of it as a throbbing, squishy, wet version of Russian Roulette.

Now, keep in mind that the Holy Terrors are also opposing gay marriage on the grounds that marriage is such a wonderful (and vulnerable) institution we can't let gays in on the fun, or they'll destroy it. They're opposing letting gays adopt or have kids or teach kids. They're depriving people (kids and potential parents) of the chance to beh happy.

And the porn. Don't forget the porn. Porn reduces crime. So, naturally, the Holy Terrors are screaming that we've got to shut down the porn. (But not before we take their campaign donations, of course. Just make it out to the RNC.)

The only conclusion I can draw from all this?

First, keep in mind that the Holy Terrors are real big on the Endtimes and Revelation as interpreted by Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, and others. The Holy Terrors are so big on Jesus' second coming they insist on having a voice in America's foreign policy, especially that of Israel, because they seem to think that by getting in good with God's Chosen People will look good on the resume when the Rapture kicks in. Some of these crazies have actually been pushing for the Iraq war and other conflicts in the Middle East precisely to get the Four Horsemen out of the stable that much more quickly.

So, it stands to reason that if the Holy Terrors are trying to get us to the end of the world ASAP, they're also trying to get us into Heaven on an individual basis as quickly as possible, as well.

In short, the Holy Terrors, through the Federal Government, are trying to kill us.

First, a little eye candy for Saturday night..

ABC Confirms the GOP's Porn Connection

And I'm not talking about Mark Foley.

Remember this?

Turns out the G.O.P. will gladly accept money from pornographers with one hand, while they're beating the drums for the execution of those same pornographers with the other hand.

ABC News blows the lid off the whole shameful episode.

In case you didn't know, or knew but had simply forgotten, it seems a prominent contributor to the Republican National Committee is a fellow named Nicholas Boyias, who's the president of Marina Pacific Distributors. Marina Pacific distributes, among other products, porn. And not just porn, but gay porn.

But wait. There's more.

According to ABC...

Marina Pacific Distributors calls itself "the leader in adult video distribution." Included in the movies for sale on their Web site are videos made by "Active Duty Productions." Active Duty, as their name suggests, has cast active duty soldiers in some of their films but not without serious consequences for the soldiers.

Three Fort Bragg soldiers were found guilty and sentenced to prison in separate courts-martial earlier this year for appearing in pornographic videos made by Active Duty. The charges included sodomy and conduct detrimental to the Army. Four other soldiers accused of appearing in Active Duty videos were also punished outside of the military court system.

So much hypocrisy...so many choices....who's the worst scumsucker in this scenario?

Fort Bragg for prosecuting these soldiers? Marina Pacific for exploiting them and sabotaging their careers? How about the RNC for taking Boyias' money?

My bet's on the RNC. They sell moral values but the only value they treasure is measured in dollars.

The Truth About The War On Marriage

From Nerve.com.

The G.O.P. is good at nothing except winning elections and telling lies. I'm talking about the BIG lies, the ones which are the exact opposite of the truth. One of their favorite boogeyman stories is how if the Democrats win, the institution of marriage in its current form will die.

Well, guess what? It's already dying.

From Ken Mondschein's article:

Last week, the Census Bureau announced that married couples are now in the minority of American households. This didn't happen all at once, of course. It's the result of a long-term trend that goes back two generations.
If you were to go to any town in America in 1940, pick a house at random and knock on the door (perhaps you were selling subscriptions to Grit magazine), there'd be a ninety-percent chance you'd find a married couple living there. Thirty years later, despite the new sexual freedom supposedly discovered by the Baby Boomers, the chance was still eight in ten. But then something funny happened: between 1998 and today — a mere eight years — the number of homes containing a married couple fell from six out of seven to one in two. The median age of first marriage has risen to twenty-seven for men and twenty-six for women from its historical low in 1950 of twenty-three and twenty. About one-quarter of Americans, or seventy-five-million people, live alone, and while most Americans do eventually get hitched, today as many couples cohabitate as marry. Singledom — and living in sin — are the new norm.

*****
While they were dating, our parents and grandparents evaluated each other as potential life partners and helpmates. We, on the other hand, don't know if we will be working the same job, let alone dating the same person, in a year. If the traditional incentive for a long-term relationship — that is, building a shared life together — is a pipe dream, why commit? As NYU sociologist Richard Sennett wrote in his 1998 book The Corrosion of Character, our society's clockwork practice of treating people like oranges — eating the pulp and throwing away the peel, to paraphrase Willy Loman — has led to a general decline in long-term thinking. Much like corporations acquire smaller companies solely to bolster their own stock prices, we've taken to pursuing relationships based on short-term goals. Nor is the lot of the married particularly enviable. Despite the prevalent idea that "sharing your feelings" (as my stepmother puts it) is what makes relationships work, economics are still the number-one cause of divorce.
*****
The whole marketplace of vice so decried by conservatives — internet personal ads, serial monogamy, sex parties, vibrator boutiques, porno chic — may be an appealing alternative to monogamous monotony, but they're a symptom, not a cause, of the decline of marriage. Where a demand exists in a capitalist economy, people are quick to fill it. If, in the end, we decide to act in "defense of marriage," we are going to need a program of paternity and maternity leave, affordable housing, guaranteed health care and social security. In other words, it seems that in the end, true family values are cognate with the "liberal agenda."

Having spent time in the trenches as a soldier in the marriage wars, I can vouch for how economic issues tend to control relationships.

I myself have argued that there needs to be a shift in the way we even look at marriage. The so-called "traditional marriage" advocates mostly seem hung up on having kids together, and how marriages need to stay together "for the sake of the children."

Pardon my language, but that's bullshit. When couples who don't belong together stay together "for the kids" the kids learn how to be a bitter and resentful adult stuck in a loveless relationship. Sometimes, it's simply better for parents to divorce more or less amicably than stay miserably married.

But I digress. My point is that the conservatives who push the "Traditional Marriage" agenda are also pushing the very anti-progressive, anti-fair trade, anti-non-traditional family agendas that are killing the "traditional family." On top of it all, since the "traditional marriage" forces seem to be interested only in producing more kids, at the expense of womens' rights and the entire concept of marrying for love, maybe the "traditional marrigage" needs to be re-thought anyway. The way things are moving, it's going to change whether we want it to or not.

A brief roll call of people in my Lovely Wife's and my circle of friends:

A couple with two kids together, and he's got a third child by a one-night stand he had in his young and impetuous days.

A couple with one child together, she's got another child by a previous marriage, and he's got two from another previous marriage.

A lesbian couple married in Canada, one of whom has a son from a "traditional marriage" that ended after three years of violent abuse on her ex-husband's part.

A boyfriend-girlfriend arrangement, also abusive. She's got two ex-husbands and a grown-up child of her own, and he's got an ex-wife and a son from that marriage.

In fact, in our circle of friends the only couple I can honestly say meets the definition of a "traditional marriage" is my Lovely Wife and myself. We've even successfully met our requirements to advance the species by having kids.

But then, we're hardly traditional when you get to know us.

A Holy Terror Comes Out Of The Closet!!!

Well...he was shoved out, actually.

I will restrain myself. I won't give in to the urge to exploit this. I won't I won't I...

I WILL, I WILL, I WILL, OH GOD I WILL!!!!

By Rocky Mountain News
November 2, 2006

COLORADO SPRINGS — The Rev. Ted Haggard stepped aside as senior pastor of the 14,000-member New Life Church and resigned today as president of the National Association of Evangelicals amid allegations by a former gay male escort that the two had a three-year sexual relationship.

*****

Mike Jones, 49, of Denver, made his allegations on the Peter Boyles show on KHOW 630 AM, saying he was compelled to come forward because he believes Haggard, an opponent of same-sex unions, is being hypocritical.

"After sitting back and contemplating this issue, the biggest reason is being a gay man all my life, I have experience with my friends, some great sadness of people that were in a relationship through the years," and were not able to enjoy the same rights and privileges as a married man and woman, Jones told Boyles on air.

"I felt it was my responsibility to my fellow brothers and sisters, that I had to take a stand, and I cannot sit back anymore and hear (what) to me is an anti-gay message."

Haggard told KUSA Channel 9 that "I’ve never had a gay relationship with anybody, and I’m steady with my wife. I’m faithful to my wife."

Jones, who told a bankruptcy judge last year that he is a self-employed fitness consultant, told Boyles that he was paid money by Haggard, who he says made frequent trips to Denver for sexual liaisons, that he has recorded voicemails and a letter from Haggard, and that he had also witnessed Haggard use methamphetamine.

This guy supposedly gets a weekly phone conference with Dubya himself.

This is big. It's not just the politicians being homophobic/hypocritical assholes, this is one of the Holy Terrors himself.

More later.

Been really busy at work lately...

Not much time to post new stuff, but...

This is better than nothing, I suppose. More when I get a chance to catch my breath.

Internet Porn Is Good!

I don't know how valid this study is. It sounds true. I'd like it to be true. Nothing I like more than finding rationalizations for doing what conventional "wisdom" says is bad for you.

How the Web Prevents Rape
All that Internet porn reduces sex crimes. Really.
By Steven E. Landsburg

Posted Monday, Oct. 30, 2006, at 2:22 PM ET
Does pornography breed rape? Do violent movies breed violent crime? Quite the opposite, it seems.

First, porn. What happens when more people view more of it? The rise of the Internet offers a gigantic natural experiment. Better yet, because Internet usage caught on at different times in different states, it offers 50 natural experiments.

The bottom line on these experiments is, "More Net access, less rape." A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes. States that adopted the Internet quickly saw the biggest declines. And, according to Clemson professor Todd Kendall, the effects remain even after you control for all of the obvious confounding variables, such as alcohol consumption, police presence, poverty and unemployment rates, population density, and so forth.

OK, so we can at least tentatively conclude that Net access reduces rape. But that's a far cry from proving that porn access reduces rape. Maybe rape is down because the rapists are all indoors reading Slate or vandalizing Wikipedia. But professor Kendall points out that there is no similar effect of Internet access on homicide. It's hard to see how Wikipedia can deter rape without deterring other violent crimes at the same time. On the other hand, it's easy to imagine how porn might serve as a substitute for rape.

If not Wikipedia, then what? Maybe rape is down because former rapists have found their true loves on Match.com. But professor Kendall points out that the effects are strongest among 15-year-old to 19-year-old perpetrators—the group least likely to use such dating services.

Moreover, professor Kendall argues that those teenagers are precisely the group that (presumably) relies most heavily on the Internet for access to porn. When you're living with your parents, it's a lot easier to close your browser in a hurry than to hide a stash of magazines. So, the auxiliary evidence is all consistent with the hypothesis that Net access reduces rape because Net access makes it easy to find porn.

Next, violence. What happens when a particularly violent movie is released? Answer: Violent crime rates fall. Instantly. Here again, we have a lot of natural experiments: The number of violent movie releases changes a lot from week to week. One weekend, 12 million people watch Hannibal, and another weekend, 12 million watch Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit.

University of California professors Gordon Dahl and Stefano DellaVigna compared what happens on those weekends. The bottom line: More violence on the screen means less violence in the streets. Probably that's because violent criminals prefer violent movies, and as long as they're at the movies, they're not out causing mischief. They'd rather see Hannibal than rob you, but they'd rather rob you than sit through Wallace & Gromit.

I say that's the most probable explanation, because the biggest drop in crime (about a 2 percent drop for every million people watching violent movies) occurs between 6 p.m. and midnight—the prime moviegoing hours. And what happens when the theaters close? Answer: Crime stays down, though not by quite as much. Dahl and DellaVigna speculate that this is because two hours at the movies means two hours of drinking Coke instead of beer, with sobering effects that persist right on through till morning. Speaking of morning, after 6 a.m., crime returns to its original level.

What about those experiments you learned about in freshman psych, where subjects exposed to violent images were more willing to turn up the voltage on actors who they believed were receiving painful electric shocks? Those experiments demonstrate, perhaps, that most people become more violent after viewing violent images. But that's the wrong question here. The right question is: Do the sort of people who commit violent crimes commit more crimes when they watch violence? And the answer appears to be no, for the simple reason that they can't commit crimes and watch movies simultaneously.

Similarly, psychologists have found that male subjects, immediately after watching pornography, are more likely to express misogynistic attitudes. But as professor Kendall points out, we need to be clear on what those experiments are testing: They are testing the effects of watching pornography in a controlled laboratory setting under the eyes of a researcher. The experience of viewing porn on the Internet, in the privacy of one's own room, typically culminates in a slightly messier but far more satisfying experience—an experience that could plausibly tamp down some of the same aggressions that the pornus interruptus of the laboratory tends to stir up.

In other words, if you want to understand the effects of on-screen sex and violence outside the laboratory, psych experiments don't tell you very much. Sooner or later, you've got to look at the data.

I'm sold on the result, if not the cause and effect relationship. I've ranted about this before, myself. It's hard for me to get around the idea that a potential rapist's compulsion to commit violence subsides as a result of a couple of hours in front of a TV or a computer screen. More likely, to me, (VERY un-scientific notion, here), the drop in crime statistics relates to how porn de-mystifies sex and makes it easier for people to talk openly about the subject. I have no idea, but I'd suspect that a significant percentage of reported rapes stem from what might be considered misunderstandings and miscommunications.

Don't get me wrong. Rapists need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and people need to learn that "No means no." However, having spent some time in the criminal justice system, I also know that misunderstandings happen, which often lead to tragic results for all involved.

The Powers That Be say...NO Sex 'Til You're 30!

Yet another example of how the government's trying to control our private lives.

Abstinence message goes beyond teens
Updated 10/31/2006 8:32 AM ET
By Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY

The federal government's "no sex without marriage" message isn't just for kids anymore.

Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in federal money that will be available to the states under revised federal grant guidelines for 2007.

The government says the change is a clarification. But critics say it's a clear signal of a more directed policy targeting the sexual behavior of adults.

"They've stepped over the line of common sense," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit that supports sex education. "To be preaching abstinence when 90% of people are having sex is in essence to lose touch with reality. It's an ideological campaign. It has nothing to do with public health."

Abstinence education programs, which have focused on preteens and teens, teach that abstaining from sex is the only effective or acceptable method to prevent pregnancy or disease. They give no instruction on birth control or safe sex.

Keep in mind that "ignorance-only" sex ed doesn't work, either. The fact that our government is trying to discourage consenting adults from having sex is astounding. But then, if they're targeting an age group which has spent the last ten years as teenagers listening to their anti-sex spiel, it's probably the safest bet.

"If you're in your twenties, don't have sex! You've spent puberty learning about sex from our ignorance-only programs, which don't teach you shit!"

G.O.P...."Grand Old Porn" party?

More on the Republicans and their willingness to take pornographers' hard-earned cash.

This time, from AmericaBlog, here and here.

Porn star Mary Carey ran for governor in California as a Republican against Ah-nold a few years ago, and they seem quite appreciative of her efforts on behalf of the G.O.P. They've also been quite appreciative of her willingness to give them money.

But...but...that's PORNOGRAPHY money! It's blood money! (Okay, not blood money...semen money? Santorum money? Squirt money?) Doesn't matter to the G.O.P. It's all green, so it's all good.

Now, I've got no problem with the porn industry as a whole, obviously. But I can't help but wonder what they expect to gain from those contributions. Do they really expect the Republicans to listen to their positions? Sway a few votes, maybe? Get some porn-friendly legislation on the docket? Please.

But don't feel so bad, Ms. Carey, for the White House playing you for a sap. They've been playing the Holy Terrors, gay Republicans, our soldiers, and the entire U.S. for saps, as well. You're not alone.

Right-wing Hypocrisy...So What Else Is New?

Joshua Micah Marshall is a journalistic genius. That's all I have to say.

The upshot of the article is that while Ken Mehlman, head of the Republican National Committee, is slamming Democrat Harold Ford for attending a Playboy Super Bowl party (and thereby accepting money from pornographers), on the one hand, on the other hand the RNC is collecting big bucks from Nicholas Boyias, head of Marina Pacific Distributors, one of the nation's largest producers and distributors not just of porn, but of GAY porn.

It's been coming out recently how the G.O.P. basically treats the moral values crowd as a big joke, gladly turning tricks for their Holy Terror whoremongers and their big business pimps, and this is simply one more demonstration. Moral values? Ethics? Patriotism? Sure. Just make the check out to cash, and thank you very much.

Sex And Politics...now the politics

Gotta warn you, I tend to get a little obsessed this time every two years. I call it "fascinated with the political process." My Lovely Wife calls it "going positively batshit."

Eight days until the midterm elections, and I don't think it's hyperbole to say that November 7th is shaping up to be the most important Election Day of our time. Yes, they're all important, and certainly the 2004 elections were big-time, as well. Nevertheless, these are more important. The choices have never been so clear, and we've rarely had so much at stake. We're faced with the option of careening pell-mell toward oblivion, or taking a step back from the brink and restoring democracy to the greatest country in the world.

I won't be so presumptive to say that sex isses are the most important issues facing voters this year. Stagnant unemployment rates, a bankrupt economy, corrupt leaders, and an incompetent administration losing not one, but two wars at a time, causing staggering losses of thousands of brave troops, hundreds of thousands of civilians, and billions and billions of taxpayer dollars, are but a few of the many, many options voters must consider next Tuesday.

Nevertheless, I feel that sex issues must at least be considered when casting votes. The rights of sexual freedom are every bit at risk as the right of habeas corpus, the right to equal protection, the right to due process, the right to freedom of speech, not to mention the right to freedom from terror, and to freedom from fear.

The Powers That Be, while seemingly otherwise occupied with other matters, nevertheless have engaged in a long, ongoing campaign to batter down our bedroom doors and dictate to us who, when, how, and why we choose to express ourselves sexually. Their campaign, documented on this blog, is nothing less than a drive to eliminate everything fun about sex, to reduce expression to a bland morass of polite and boring platitudes, to reduce women to baby-making machines, and to reduce sex itself to a mechanical, necessary chore.

Why? Why do the Powers That Be want to control our sex lives? I have my ideas, one of which is the fact that they want to control our bodies and our minds, making us compliant little worker ants and soldier ants, through the powerful emotion of shame. To do this, they have to control our sense of dignity and our sense of power, and to do that, they have to control our sex lives.

Observe the woman in the post below. She's sexy, she's sexual, she's brazen, and she's displaying an element of power. She's in control of her body, and of her own mind. The Powers That Be fear these images, because by their being available for you to observe, they're NOT in control.

That doesn't stop them from trying. The government is trying to shut down sex sites, sex education, porn movies, erotica, sex toys, sexual preference, and sex acts themselves which they consider "Unacceptable." What is their goal? Their utopia? Read Orwell's "1984" and you'll get a pretty good idea.

They say it's in the name of decency and of morally upright behavior. They say they're trying to prevent the corruption of society and of the sex act. However, an essential element of decency and of morality is respect. Respect for the choices of others. I may not like the way others get their rocks off, but if it doesn't harm me or my children, whatever consenting adults choose to do in their own bedrooms is their own business and none of mine. That's sexual freedom, and that's what the Powers That Be are opposing, and that's why we need to fight back.

Gore Vidal said, "Sex is politics." He also said,

"In order for a ruling class to rule, there must be arbitrary prohibitions. Of all prohibitions, sexual taboo is the most useful because sex involves everyone. To be able to lock up someone or deprive him of employment because of his sex life is a very great power indeed, and one seldom used in civilized societies. But although the United States is the best and most perfect of earth's societies and our huddled masses earth's envy, we have yet to create a civilization, as opposed to a way of life. That is why we have allowed our governors to divide the population into two teams. One team is good, godly, straight; the other is evil, sick, vicious...Most people are a mixture of impulses if not practices, and what anyone does with a willing partner is of no social or cosmic significance."

If you're a consenting adult and you like porn/erotica/smut, or you like kinky sex or swinging or BDSM or you just like being left to your own devices when it comes to getting your rocks off, pay attention to the choices being offered, pay attention to the rhetoric, and don't just vote with your heart or your brain or your sense of justice.

Vote with your loins.

Sex And Politics...first, the sex

Sort of an apology ahead of time

Bush's War On Porn...

...is about as successful as everything else he's ever done.

Booming porn faces backlash
As its earnings pass $12 billion, the American industry is attracting the attention of legislators. John Harlow reports from Los Angeles


THE American pornography business is growing so fast that for the first time in a decade it is attracting the unwelcome attention of the White House and federal prosecutors.

When George Bush entered the Oval Office in 2001 he accused his predecessor Bill Clinton of being “soft on porn” and vowed to crack down on an industry that was generating $9.8 billion (£5.2 billion) a year. But anti-porn campaigners in Bush’s own party say that since then the president has been distracted by the war on terror and has done little.

Thanks in part to a new generation of “crossover” stars such as Jenna Jameson, who appears in both sex videos and the book charts with her bestseller How to Make Love Like a Porn Star, industry earnings have risen to more than $12 billion a year. Top producers such as the Private Media Group are even listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange.

With an average 40% profit margin on DVD sales, explicit porn is twice as profitable as the music business. Porn revenues in the US are higher than all money generated by the combined professional American football, baseball and basketball franchises.

Production is booming too. According to Adult Video News, 13,500 titles were released last year, compared with 8,000 in 1998 and 1,250 in 1988.

And, as in Hollywood, the top 20 celebrities took the lion’s share of receipts — women like Jameson and stage-named men such as Eric Everhard, Flick Shagwell and Seymore Butts.

Porn has also become high profile, with brands such as Hustler edging towards respectability and established stars such as Sarah Michelle Geller, who made her name as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, playing an x-rated actress in her next film.

I've written about "porn chic" in the past, myself. Simply put, all this brou-ha-ha the Holy Terrors are making about the porn industry calls attention to porn, but not in a "how disgusting" way, but in more of a "what's the big deal" way. And since it's gone mainstream to an extent, there's no wayt to remove porn's influence in the media, either. Try to remove explicit langage and content from every book, magazine, video, or the internet, and see how far that gets you.

But tell that to Bushco.

The Family Value of Ostracism

Found this via Crooks And Liars

In Senate race, family values campaign tested by real life
DAVID ROYSE
Associated Press

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - Randall Terry doesn't run away from "family values issues" in his state Senate race.

Among the conservative Christian's pledges are preserving traditional marriage and opposing gay adoptions. He has touted efforts to stop abortions. His campaign mailers sum up the value he puts on family: they show a picture with his wife, a daughter and three grinning young sons taken before a fourth was born this summer.

But Terry's adopted son Jamiel says the picture is missing two people: he and his sister Tila, also adopted. Both have been estranged from Terry since Jamiel came out as a gay man and Tila had a child out of wedlock.
Jamiel Terry said the self-image that his father is crafting and the campaign message about strong families ignores part of his own family history. He said voters have a right to know about that.

"He is very big on image," Jamiel Terry said. "In a large way Tila and I mess up that image."

Randall Terry is the founder of Operation Rescue, the anti-choice, anti-abortion group. He's especially noted for running off at the mouth about sexual choice, and homosexuality.

I'm not wild about passing judgment upon the way other families live their lives, but when someone puts his own family out there as a textbook example of the way it should be done, they're making themselves subject to scrutiny, don't you think?

Where does casting children out fall in the "family values" spectrum?

Talk About The Pot Calling The Kettle Black...

In case you didn't know, or knew but had simply forgotten, Democrat Jim Webb is running for Republican George Allen's senate seat from Virginia. It's lately come out that Admiral Webb (USN Ret'd) wrote some spy novels with a few explicit sex scenes. No biggie, right?

Second Lady Lynne Cheney would disagree. She flew off the handle with CNN about the issue, info here.

Here's the funny part, as Think Progress pointed out. Mrs. Cheney herself penned an explicit lesbian love novel herself.

I can't help but wonder what sort of loathing goes on in the Cheney household at family gatherings. Don't forget that the Vice President's daughter is a lesbian, herself. How can she deal with the fact that her father is a very public opponent of homosexuality, her mother tees off on explicit sex in fiction while trying to hide her own attempt at soft-core porn, and Mary herself recently made a contribution opposing Virginia's anti-gay ballot initiative.

Oh, that's right. They're all hypocrites, so that's how they cope.

I forgot.

The New Jersey Gay Marriage Decision...

as promised, a closer look.

The full opinion is here.

Frankly, the New Jersey Supreme Court did a better job of hoofing than you'd see on "Dancing With The Stars."

First, the bad news:

The New Jersey Supreme Court, like virtually all other state appeals courts that have addressed the issue, concluded that there's no fundamental right for gays to marry, which permits the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to apply.

Gays can enjoy substantive legal rights which are available to married people, but they can't marry.

The Court ultimately passed the buck to the New Jersey legislature, refusing to outline exactly what rights gay couples can enjoy. Instead, the court ordered that body to draft legislation to make those decisions. So much for "activist" judges.

The Court applied only New Jersey law to this case, and didn't invoke any Federal rights at all. This case isn't going any further. No appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, here.

The Court didn't even really make or interpret new law. Instead, the Court concluded that a Domestic Partnership act passed by the state legislature was valid and should be enforced.

The good news:

The NJ Supreme Court DID determine that the state's equal protection laws extend to gay couples, and the Court DID conclude that gays are entitled to substantive rights available to married heterosexual couples. That's a plus.

The Court seems to be following the present trend. Don't call it marriage, but offer the substantive rights of marriage. Just don't call it marriage. Half a loaf, I presume, is better than none.

The lower courts fell back on the old argument that the main purpose of marriage is to raise kids, and that heterosexual couples offer the best environment for raising kids. The Supreme Court shot this one down cold, and even pointed out that most of the plaintiffs in this case have children themselves. The Supreme Court also pointed out that the kids are harmed by their parents' inability to have the same protections offered to heterosexual couples.

This is big. Ultimately, when gays are allowed to marry, it'll be because depriving them of being married violates not just their own equal protection rights, but those of the kids, as well. This decision shows gay couples litigating this issue in the future the way to go.

Gad, I'm such a law geek. Going to have a beer or two, now.

Victory In New Jersey...

...I guess.

MSNBC seems to think the issue's still up in the air, however. Think Progress seems more assertive in calling it a victory for gay marriage.

I'll hold off on deciding for myself until after I read the opinion. More later.

New Jersey Supreme Court Ruling Tomorrow on Gay Marriage

You gotta be a real sick puppy to be such a law geek for something like this.

Lambda Legal appears optimistic.

And just in time for the elections, too.

Whew!

Sex! Politics! Sex! Politics! Even I can only take so much talk about sex and politics before I need a break!



So let's just focus on sex.

John McCain on Gay Marriage

His thoughts? From "Hardball" at Iowa State University.

On gay marriage:

“On the issue of gay marriage, I do believe, and I think it's a correct policy that the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, a marriage between man and woman, should have a unique status. But I‘m not for depriving any other group of Americans from having rights. But I do believe that there is something that is unique between marriage between a man and a woman, and I believe it should be protected.”

“I think that gay marriage should be allowed, if there‘s a ceremony kind of thing, if you want to call it that. I don‘t have any problem with that, but I do believe in preserving the sanctity of a union between man and woman.”

"On the issue of the gay marriage, I believe that people want to have private ceremonies, that‘s fine. I do not believe that gay marriages should be legal."

I think Senator McCain is entitled to all due respect as a serviceman and a former P.O.W. As a politician, he's a gutless wonder.

About my last post...

I characterized religious conservative fundamentalists as "pimps" and Republican lawmakers as "whores."

Upon reflection, (and a phone call from concerned family members--thanks for reading, Mom!) I've found myself wondering if I've gone too far. Might my characterization of the relationship between the Holy Terrors and the G.O.P. as being akin to prostitution be a tad unfair and unreasonable?

Hill Republicans Air Out the Closet
Foley Scandal Points Up Acceptance And Anxieties of Gay Staffers

By Jose Antonio Vargas
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 20, 2006; Page C01

*****
"You have to separate the marketing from the reality. The reality is, these (Republican Congress) members are not homophobic. For the most part, they're using this marketing to play to our base and stay in power. They have to turn out the votes," said David Duncan, once a board member of the Lesbian and Gay Congressional Staff Association and a former top aide to Rep. Robert Ney (R-Ohio), who last week pleaded guilty to corruption charges linked to the Abramoff scandal.

Andrew Sullivan, the openly gay conservative columnist, calls the Republican leadership "closet-tolerant."

"They're tolerant of gay people but they have to keep quiet about it because their base would go crazy if they ever express it. That's the bottom line," Sullivan said. "They have this acute cognitive dissonance, which is a polite way of saying hypocrisy."

Naw. "Pimps" and "Whores" pretty much covers it.